[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46141-46142]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18821]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67515; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update
the Trading Floor Qualification Examination

July 27, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 13, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Phlx proposes to revise its floor qualification examination.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete obsolete questions,
revise outdated questions and add several new questions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at Phlx's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to improve the
Exchange's program for qualification of members by updating its floor
qualification examination. The Exchange has employed a written floor
qualification examination, which is required for persons seeking to act
as members on the trading floor,\3\ for many years. The examination was
last amended in late 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rules 620(a) and 901(c). See also Rule 1061 applicable
to Floor Brokers.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63603 (December 22,
2010), 75 FR 82419 (December 30, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-180). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33304 (December 9, 1993), 58 FR
65613 (December 15, 1993) (SR-Phlx-92-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to update the exam in a variety
of ways. The exam would continue to be comprised of 100 questions,
randomly and electronically selected from a question bank of
approximately 172 questions. The floor qualification examination is
administered by the Exchange's membership department, and requires a
passing score of 70 during a 75 minute testing period.
    In terms of outdated questions, the Exchange proposes to delete
about 19 obsolete or confusing questions, mostly pertaining to manual
trading, which is less prevalent today. The Exchange proposes to modify
approximately 38 questions to make various minor corrections and
clarifications reflecting changes over time. Similarly, the Exchange
proposes to add approximately 17 new questions generally covering
Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, Complex Orders, Remote Specialists,
and price improvement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in

general to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,\7\ which authorizes exchanges to
prescribe standards of training, experience and competence for persons
associated with exchange members, and gives exchanges the authority to
bar a natural person from becoming a member or a person associated with
a member, if the person does not meet the standards of training,
experience and competence prescribed in the rules of the exchange. The
Exchange believes that revising its floor member qualification
examination should better test the knowledge of its floor members, and
thereby enhance the Exchange's standards for training, experience and
competence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
\9\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
constitutes a stated policy, practice or interpretation with respect to
the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the
SRO, and therefore has become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-96 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-96. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Phlx. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-96 and should be
submitted on or before August 23, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18821 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48690-48695]
[DOCID:fr24se09-19]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0664; FRL-8962-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
The Chicago and Evansville Nonattainment Areas; Determination of
Attainment of the Fine Particle Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Chicago (Illinois and
Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas have attained the 1997 fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). The proposed determinations are based upon quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show
that the areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS for the 2006 to 2008 monitoring period. Preliminary data for 2009
suggest that the areas continue to monitor attainment. If these
proposed determinations are made final, the requirements for these
areas to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably
available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be
suspended for so long as the areas continue to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0664 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0664. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and

made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Melissa M. Barnhart by phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa M. Barnhart, Criteria
Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. Does EPA Believe that the Chicago and Evansville Areas Meet the
Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards?
    A. Criteria
    B. Chicago Area
    C. Evansville Area
V. What is the Effect of These Actions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chicago area (including
portions in Illinois and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana area have
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposed determinations
are based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that show that the areas have monitored
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006-2008
monitoring period. Preliminary data available to date for 2009 suggest
that the areas continue to monitor attainment.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m3 based on a three-
year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA
established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to particulate matter. The process for designating areas
following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in
107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA and State air quality
agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in 1999, and developed all air quality monitors by January 2001.
On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air quality
designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar
years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April 5, 2005.
The Chicago area (known formally as the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
area) and the Evansville area were designated nonattainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Does EPA Believe That the Chicago and Evansville Areas Meet the
Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards?

A. Criteria

    This rulemaking is assessing whether the Chicago and Evansville
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are attaining the PM2.5
NAAQS that were promulgated in 1997. The Chicago non-attainment area
includes portions in Illinois and portions in Indiana. The Illinois
portion of this area is defined at 40 CFR 81.314, and the Indiana
portion of this area as well as the Evansville area are defined at 40
CFR 81.315.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, 50.7:
    (1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are
met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to
15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.
    (2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards,
as promulgated in 1997, are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 65 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area.
    In 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standards to a
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. However, today's rulemaking only assesses
whether the applicable areas are attaining the 1997 standards.

B. Chicago Area

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Chicago
area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N.
All data considered have been recorded in EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database. This review primarily addresses air quality data
collected in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008.
    The following table provides both the annual average concentration
and the 98th percentile 24-hour average

concentration averaged over 2006 to 2008 at all sites in the Chicago
area, including sites in both Illinois and Indiana. The highest three-
year average annual concentration for 2006 to 2008 on this table is
recorded at the Schiller Park site, site number 17-031-3103, recording
a three-year average annual concentration of 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\. The
highest 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration is recorded at
the McCook site, site number 17-031-1016, recording a three-year
average 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
All sites in the area have three-year average annual PM2.5
concentrations below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and three-year average 98th
percentile 24-hour average concentrations far below the 1997 standard
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\.

             Table 1--Annual and 24-Hour Average Concentrations in the Chicago Area (in [mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                24-Hour
                         Site location                              Site No.      Annual average      average
                                                                                concentration    concentration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East 114th.....................................................       170310022            13.8               31
103rd & Luella.................................................       170310050            13.1               29
Mayfair Pumping Stn............................................       170310052            14.1               33
Com Ed.........................................................       170310057            13.6               31
Lawndale.......................................................       170310076            13.2               32
McCook.........................................................       170311016              **               35
Blue Island....................................................       170312001            13.3               31
Schiller Park..................................................       170313103            14.6               33
Summit.........................................................       170313301            13.5               31
Des Plaines....................................................       170314007            11.8               29
Northbrook.....................................................       170314201            11.7               30
Cicero.........................................................       170316005          *(14.1)              33
Naperville.....................................................       170434002            12.6               32
Elgin..........................................................       170890003            11.9               33
Aurora.........................................................       170890007            12.5               29
Zion...........................................................       170971007            10.6               27
Cary...........................................................       171110001            11.2               28
Joliet.........................................................       171971002            12.8               32
Wilmington.....................................................       171971011            10.7               26
E. Chicago.....................................................       180890006            13.2               31
Gary-IITRI.....................................................       180890022              **               31
Gary-Burr St...................................................       180890026              **               33
Griffith.......................................................       180890027            12.4               29
Gary Water.....................................................       180890031            13.3               31
Gary-Ivanhoe...................................................       180891003            13.3               30
Hammond-Purdue.................................................       180892004            12.7               30
Hammond-Davis St...............................................       180892010            12.9               30
Dune Acres.....................................................       181270020            12.0               29
Ogden Dunes....................................................       181270024            12.2               29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data do not meet completeness requirements.
** Data are not to be compared to the annual NAAQS.

    Under 40 CFR 58.30(a)(1), for sites with data that are
representative of relatively unique, generally localized
concentrations, the data are compared only to the 24-hour NAAQS, not to
the annual NAAQS. Illinois has one site and Indiana has two sites
representing localized concentrations near industrial facilities, and
EPA agrees with the States that data at these sites are not to be
compared to the annual standard.\1\ Illinois has also requested that
the Schiller Park site (site number 17-031-3103) be designated as
collecting data that is not to be compared to the annual standard. EPA
is not judging whether this designation is appropriate. The applicable
regulation, at 40 CFR 58.30(a)(2), recognizes that some microscale
sites collect data that is representative of multiple locations with
localized high concentrations, and provides in these cases that the
data are to be compared to the annual standard. The Schiller Park site
is near a major highway, and the site may be representative of multiple
locations in the Chicago area that have similar proximity to major
highways. For this reason, the table above includes annual average
concentrations at this site. In any case, the site shows an annual
average concentration that meets the annual standard, so that the
designation of this site does not influence EPA's finding that the area
is attaining the annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In any case, the annual average concentrations at these
sites averaged for 2006 to 2008 are below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\: the
average at Illinois' McCook site (site number 17-031-1016) is 14.7
[mu]g/m\3\, the average at Indiana's Burr Street site (site number
18-089-0026) is 14.9 [mu]g/m\3\, and the average at Indiana's IITRI
site (site number 18-089-0022) is 13.7 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further consideration of concentrations at Cicero, site 17-031-
6005, is necessary because data at this site do not meet completeness
requirements, and because the site monitored a violation for the most
recent three years with complete data, i.e. 2005 to 2007. Under 40 CFR
50 Appendix N 4.1 (addressing the annual standard), a year meets
completeness requirements when ``at least 75 percent of the scheduled
sampling days for each quarter has valid data.'' This site collected
only 50 percent of its scheduled observations during the first quarter
of 2008 and 70 percent of its scheduled observations during the fourth
quarter of 2008.
    Under 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1(c) (again with respect to annual
averages), EPA may approve the use of less than complete data for
purposes of comparison to the NAAQS, and ``may consider factors such as
* * * nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.''
The following table summarizes annual average PM2.5
concentrations for all monitors operating in the Chicago nonattainment
area that have observed a violation of the annual standard for at least
one

three-year period since 2002. These monitors are the most similar to
the Cicero monitor and provide the most relevant information for
assessing air quality at Cicero.

               Table 2--Annual Average Design Values for All Sites in the Chicago Area With Violating Monitors Since 2002 (in [mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average design value
                 Site location                      Site No.    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2002-2004  2003-2005  2004-2006  2005-2007     2006       2007       2008     2006-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East 114th.....................................       170310022       15.0       15.6       14.8       15.3      13.23      15.73      12.54       13.8
103rd & Luella.................................       170310050       14.9       15.2       14.5       14.7      13.33      14.14      11.80       13.1
Mayfair Pumping Stn............................       170310052       15.9       16.0       15.6       15.7      14.50      15.49      12.18       14.1
Com Ed.........................................       170310057       14.9       15.3       14.6       15.1      13.51      15.18      12.03       13.6
Lawndale.......................................       170310076       14.9       15.2       14.7       14.8      13.48      14.30      11.89       13.2
Blue Island....................................       170312001       14.7       15.1       14.6       14.6      13.18      14.32      12.50       13.3
Schiller Park..................................       170313103       16.0       16.8       16.1       15.9      14.84      15.35      13.59       14.6
Summit.........................................       170313301       15.3       15.6       15.0       15.2      13.78      14.77      12.03       13.5
Cicero.........................................       170316005       16.0       16.1       15.3       15.1      14.34      14.79      13.25    * (14.1)
Gary Water.....................................       180890031  .........       16.8       15.1       14.9      13.29      14.55      12.17       13.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data do not meet completeness requirements

    EPA used multiple approaches to assess the likelihood that the
Cicero site, had it collected complete data, would have shown
attainment for the 2006 to 2008 period. One approach was to examine the
relationship between concentrations at the Cicero site and
concentrations nearby and elsewhere in the area. The Cicero site
generally records values slightly below the values at the Schiller Park
site; average concentrations from 2002 to 2008 are 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\ lower
at the Cicero site than at the Schiller Park site. More generally, the
concentrations at the various sites in the Chicago area are well
correlated. EPA also examined quarterly average concentrations at the
various sites; these data reinforce the point that the Cicero site is
very likely to observe low concentrations when other sites in the area
are observing low concentrations. This degree of correlation suggests
that the degree of air quality improvement at the various other sites
in the area is a good indication of the degree of air quality
improvement likely to have occurred at the Cicero site. The other sites
all show 2008 annual average around 2-3 [mu]g/m\3\ lower than the 2007
annual average values, which is approximately the difference between
the 2007 average and the average of available 2008 data found at the
Cicero site.
    In summary, since the available 2008 data at the Cicero site show
concentrations that are in the expected range relative to
concentrations observed at other similar sites in the area, EPA has
confidence that the incomplete data in 2008 at the Cicero site are
representative of the concentrations that would likely have been found
in a complete data set, and that the complete data set would have shown
attainment.
    A second approach was to use the 2008 annual average from the
Schiller Park site (a traditionally higher concentration site) in lieu
of using data from the Cicero site for that year. This yielded a three-
year design value of 14.13 [mu]g/m\3\, indicating attainment. Thus, as
provided for in 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1(c), EPA again finds that data
from other sites support the finding that the available data at the
Cicero site give valid evidence that the site is attaining the
standard.
    A third approach was a conservative data substitution analysis. For
each sampling day in 2008 for which the Cicero site failed to collect
data, EPA substituted the highest concentration observed on that day at
any site in the Chicago area. This analysis yielded an upper bound 2008
average concentration at Cicero of 14.11 [mu]g/m\3\, somewhat higher
than the 13.25 [mu]g/m\3\ found with incomplete data. Using this upper
bound estimate for 2008, the upper bound estimate for the 2006 to 2008
average concentration at the Cicero site is 14.4 [mu]g/m\3\. For these
reasons, EPA is confident that if the Cicero site had collected
complete data in 2008, it would have resulted in a design value that
would have been below 15 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, EPA believes air quality at
this site, as well as at other sites in the area, is meeting the annual
air quality standard.
    In accordance with Appendix N and standard EPA practice, this
review is based on the three most recent years of data, i.e., data from
2006 to 2008. Appendix N does not provide for examining partial years
of data, because various seasons of the year reflect various influences
on PM2.5 concentrations, and a partial year's data may not
be representative of values that would be determined from a full year's
data set. Nevertheless, EPA examined data from the first half of 2009.
For each site, the average of available 2009 data is at or below the
average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008, and the 98th
percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more
than 30 [mu]g/m\3\ below the pertinent standard. Therefore, the
available data for 2009 are consistent with the finding, based on 2006
to 2008 data, that the Chicago area is attaining the 1997
PM2.5 standards.
    On the basis of this review, EPA has concluded that this area
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data. In
addition, monitoring data for 2009 that are available to date in the
EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, indicate that this area
continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

B. Evansville Area

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Evansville
area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N.
All data considered have been recorded in EPA's AQS database. This
review primarily addresses air quality data collected in the three-year
period from 2006 to 2008.
    The highest annual average PM2.5 concentration in the
Evansville nonattainment area for the 2006-2008 monitoring period is
13.7 [mu]g/m\3\, which occurs both at the Jasper Golf site (site 18-
037-0005, in Dubois County) and at

the Evansville/West Mill Road site (site 18-163-0012, in Vanderburgh
County). The Evansville area also has four additional monitors with
data for 2006 to 2008, at which the 2006-2008 three-year average annual
concentrations range from 13.4 to 13.6 [mu]g/m\3\. The average 98th
percentile 24-hour concentrations range from 28 to 32 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus,
the Evansville area is observing concentrations well below the 1997
standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 65 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. The
following table provides annual average and 98th percentile 24-hour
average concentrations at all sites in the Evansville area.

     Table 3--Annual and 24-Hour Average Design Values for All Sites in the Evansville Area (in [mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                24-Hour
                          Site location                              Site No.     Annual average  average design
                                                                                design value        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Sport....................................................       180370004            13.4              32
Jasper Golf.....................................................       180370005            13.7              31
Jasper..........................................................       180372001            13.6              30
Evansville--Civic Center........................................       181630006            13.4              30
Evansville--W. Mill.............................................       181630012            13.7              28
U. of Evansville................................................       181630016            13.6              29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some sites in the Evansville area did not meet the completeness
criterion of measuring at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples.
Under 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1(c), (addressing annual averages), EPA
may approve the use of less than complete data for purposes of
comparison to the NAAQS, and ``may consider factors such as * * *
nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.'' For
these sites, EPA conducted a data substitution analysis, assessing
whether the site would still have observed attainment under the
hypothesis that the monitor on the days of missed samples might have
recorded the highest concentration that the monitor observed during the
applicable quarter during the 2006 to 2008 period. Both the Jasper Golf
site and the Evansville/West Mill Road site had a quarter in 2006 to
2008 that measured less than 75 percent complete data, but in both
cases the substitution analysis indicates that the monitors would have
shown attainment even with conservative assumptions about the missing
data.
    A third site, known as the Jasper Sport Complex site (site 18-037-
004, in DuBois County), had missing data to an extent such that the
conservative data substitution approach could not be used to confirm
that the site is attaining the annual standard. This site began
operation in early 2006 (January 29, 2006), and so earlier (e.g. 2005
to 2007) three-year averages are not available. Thus, one option is for
EPA to find that air quality at this site is indeterminate and to
discard this site from its evaluation. The other option is for EPA to
examine the data at this site in relation to data at other similar
sites in the area, to judge the likelihood that the monitor would have
shown attainment had it collected complete data. The available data at
this site have always indicated annual average concentrations below
15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The available data at this site are similar to the
data are other nearby sites in the area. Therefore, EPA believes this
site, like the other sites in the Evansville area, is attaining the
standard. In addition, all sites with data from 2005 to 2007 are
showing attainment for that period as well. Therefore, EPA is confident
that all sites in the Evansville area, including sites that did not
meet completeness requirements, are now meeting the 1997 NAAQS.
    In accordance with Appendix N and standard EPA practice, this
review of data is based on the three most recent years of complete
data, generally 2006 to 2008. Appendix N does not provide for examining
partial years of data, because various seasons of the year reflect
various influences on PM2.5 concentrations, and a partial
year's data may not be representative of values that would be
determined from a full year's data set. Nevertheless, EPA examined data
from the first half of 2009. For each site, the average of available
2009 data is at or below the average for corresponding periods in 2006
to 2008, and the 98th percentile of available 24-hour average
concentrations is again more than 30 [mu]g/m\3\ below the pertinent
standard. Therefore, the available data for 2009 are consistent with
the finding, based on 2006 to 2008 data, that the Evansville area is
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards.
    On the basis of this review, EPA has concluded that this area has
met and continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    If these determinations are made final, under the provisions of
EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the
requirements for the Chicago and Evansville PM2.5
nonattainment areas to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, the proposed determinations would: (1)
For the Chicago and Evansville nonattainment areas, suspend the
requirements to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably
available control technologies (RACT)), a reasonable further progress
plan (RFP), contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related
to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue until
such time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that the area has
violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate from, and not
influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or
requirements for the Chicago and Evansville areas based on the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect regardless of whether
EPA designates these areas as nonattainment areas for purposes of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below, any such
final determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation of the
area to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If these rulemakings are finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that
either or both areas have violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40

CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist for the pertinent area(s), and
the pertinent area(s) would thereafter have to address the pertinent
requirements.
    The determinations that EPA proposes with this action, that the air
quality data show attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, is not
equivalent to the redesignation of the areas to attainment. These
proposed actions, if finalized, would not constitute a redesignation to
attainment under 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because we would not yet have
approved maintenance plans for the areas as required under 175A of the
CAA, nor would we have determined that the areas have met the other
requirements for redesignation. The designation status of the areas
would remain nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the areas meet the CAA requirements
for redesignation to attainment.
    These proposed actions, if finalized, are limited to a
determination that the Chicago and Evansville areas have attained the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became
effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852) and are set forth at 40 CFR
50.7. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on
December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144) are set forth at 40 CFR 50.13. EPA is
currently in the process of making designation determinations, as
required by CAA 107(d)(1), for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has
not made any designation determinations for the Chicago or Evansville
areas based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. These proposed
determinations, and any final determinations, will have no effect on,
and are not related to, any future designation determination that EPA
may make based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago or
Evansville areas. Conversely, any future designation determination of
the Chicago or Evansville areas, based on the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, will not have any effect on the determinations proposed by this
action.
    If these proposed determinations are made final and the Chicago and
Evansville areas continue to demonstrate attainment with the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the Chicago and Evansville
areas to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would remain suspended,
regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as nonattainment areas
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Once the areas are
designated for the 2006 NAAQS, they will have to meet all applicable
requirements for that designation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and
would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et
seq.). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air
quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have Tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it proposes to determine that air quality in the affected
area is meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it
would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the
attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in
place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures to
otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paper Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining
to the determinations of attainment of the fine particle standard for
the Chicago (Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas,
involves proposed determinations of attainment based on air quality
data and will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-23087 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 50025]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20628]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14999-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
Four Lakes Task Force

    On June 20, 2019, Four Lakes Task Force filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Edenville Dam Hydroelectric
Project located on the Tittabawassee and Tobacco River system
approximately one mile north of Edenville, in Gladwin and Midland
Counties, Michigan. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The project is located immediately upstream of the confluence of
Tittabawassee and Tobacco rivers and would consist of the following
facilities: (1) A 6-square-mile, 40,000 acre-feet at normal maximum
surface elevation of 676.1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum 29 (NGVD29)
existing reservoir (Wixom Lake); (2) a 6,200.0-foot-long existing
earthen gravity dam with a minimum crest elevation of 682.1 feet NGVD29
including: (i) a 625.0-foot-long left (south-east) embankment; (ii) a
68.6-foot-wide spillway containing two 20.0-foot-wide by 9.5-foot-high
steel Tainter gates and one 23.6-foot-wide by 9.5-foot-high steel
Tainter gate each with a sill elevation of 667.8 feet NGVD29; (iii) a
50.5-foot-wide, 114.7-foot-long existing concrete and steel powerhouse
containing two 2.4 megawatts (MW) turbine-generators; (iv) a 3,428.7-
foot-long center section embankment; (v) a 60.0-foot-wide, 60.0-foot-
long new concrete and steel powerhouse containing one 1.2 MW turbine-
generator; (vi) a 72.2-foot-wide spillway containing two 23.6-foot-wide
by 9.5-foot-high steel Tainter gates and one 20.0-foot-wide by 9.5-
foot-high steel Tainter gate each with a sill elevation of 667.8 feet
NGVD29; and (vii) a 1,895.0-foot-long right (west) embankment; (3) a
50.6 to 65.0-foot-wide, 47.0-foot-long tailrace; (4) an 800-foot-long,
2.3 kilovolt existing transmission line conveying the project power to
Edenville Dam Substation owned by Consumers Energy; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of
21,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: David E. Kepler, II, Four Lakes Task Force, 233
E. Larkin St., Suite 2, Midland, MI 48640; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14999-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14999) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 18, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20628 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25588-25590]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11018]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2010-0032]
RIN 2126-AB36

Hours of Service Exception for Railroad Signal Employees

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) amends
its hours-of-service (HOS) regulations to adopt regulatory language
consistent with the statutory exemption for certain railroad signal
employees operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in connection with
railroad signal work. This is in accordance with the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of 2008), which took effect July 16,
2009. This action will ensure that Federal, State and local motor
carrier enforcement officials are aware of the statutory exemption
applicable to signal employees and eliminate the potential for issuance
of improper citations.

DATES: This action is effective on May 5, 2011.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents
identified by docket number FMCSA-2010-0032 or RIN 2126-AB36 go to
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
visit the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Management
Facility at West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background/Overview

    This exception to FMCSA's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations is
mandated by the RSIA of 2008. This law provides that ``signal
employees'' who operate motor vehicles and who are regulated under 49
U.S.C. 21101, et seq., are not subject to HOS rules promulgated by any
other Federal authority, including FMCSA. See 49 U.S.C. 21104(e). Thus,
FMCSA amends its regulations to state that FMCSA's HOS regulations do
not apply to a signal employee who is regulated under 49 U.S.C. 21101-
21109. This amendment will clarify the current exception applicable to
signal employees for industry and for Federal, State and local law
enforcement and eliminate the potential for issuance of improper
citations.
    FMCSA is also amending the authority citation for 49 CFR part 395
to add appropriate statutory references and eliminate references that
are either erroneous or unnecessary.

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on FMCSA's authority to implement
statutory directives enacted by several provisions of the RSIA of 2008,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848, 49 U.S.C. 21101, et seq. Section
108 of the RSIA of 2008 substantively amends the law applicable to
employees engaged in signal work for

railroad operations, effective July 16, 2009. Section 108(a) amends the
definition of ``signal employee'' to eliminate the words ``employed by
a railroad carrier.'' See 49 U.S.C. 21101(4). As a result, employees of
railroad contractors and subcontractors who are engaged in installing,
repairing, or maintaining signal systems (the functions within the
definition of signal employee) will also be covered by the HOS laws
administered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Section
108(c) modifies the HOS restrictions applicable to covered employees.
See 49 U.S.C. 21104(a)-(d).
    Finally, section 108(c) provides that the HOS, duty hours, and rest
periods of signal employees are governed exclusively by the HOS laws
administered by FRA. It also provides that signal employees operating
applicable motor vehicles are not subject to other HOS, duty hours, or
rest period rules besides the FRA's requirements. See 49 U.S.C.
21104(e).
    The statutory provision may be incorporated in regulations adopted
by FMCSA under the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49
U.S.C. 31502(b)) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C.
31136). FMCSA is authorized to implement these statutory provisions by
delegation from the Secretary of Transportation in 49 CFR part 1.73.
    Congress gave the Agency no discretion with respect to
implementation of these RSIA of 2008 provisions. While the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ordinarily requires the issuance of
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and opportunity for public
comment, the APA provides an exception when an ``agency for good cause
finds * * * that notice and public procedure * * * are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Because this rule is technical and simply conforms FMCSA rules with
current statutory provisions, the Agency deems notice and comment
procedures ``unnecessary'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The promulgation
of this final rule is a nondiscretionary ministerial act required by a
statute. It is also contrary to the public interest to delay
clarification of this requirement and FMCSA's lack of authority to
enforce regulations in light of the FRA's authority of this area. Thus,
the Agency finds that this rule may be adopted without issuing an NPRM
and receiving public comment.
    Similarly, the Agency finds the normal 30-day delayed effective
date following publication of a rule does not apply. 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The APA exempts from the delayed effective date requirement ``a
substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Pursuant to the RSIA of 2008,
persons covered by the statutory provision have not been subject to
FMCSA's HOS requirements since the enactment of the legislation. This
rule simply makes FMCSA rules consistent with the statute. Therefore, a
30-day delay in the effective date would serve no purpose as the Agency
amends its rule to eliminate confusion among enforcement officials. The
Agency further finds good cause for this rule to take effect upon
publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because, given that the rule
results in no substantive change in the law, there is no need for the
affected industry to prepare for its implementation.
    Although the RSIA of 2008 uses the term ``exemption'' to cover
signal employees, in order to avoid confusion with the process that
FMCSA uses to grant time-limited exemptions under 49 CFR part 381,
today's final rule creates an ``exception.'' This exception, unlike an
exemption, is permanent in nature, subject to our legal authority.

III. RSIA of 2008 Provisions Implemented by the Final Rule

    We implement section 108(c) of the RSIA of 2008 by adding paragraph
(r) to Sec.  395.1, exempting signal employees who operate CMVs, but
who are covered by laws applicable to railroad operations, from FMCSA
HOS regulations.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this action does not meet the criteria
for a ``significant regulatory action'' either as specified in
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563 issued by
the President on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821), or within the meaning
of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures
(44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). Therefore, this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). There is no
economic impact to this rule that would necessitate conducting a full
regulatory evaluation. The rule simply codifies the elimination of
FMCSA jurisdiction over railroad signal employees, pursuant to the RSIA
of 2008. The RSIA of 2008 section 108(c) delegates the jurisdiction
over the HOS, duty hours, and rest periods of signal employees
exclusively to the FRA. See 49 U.S.C. 21104(a)-(e).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121,
110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because
the Agency has not issued an NPRM prior to this action. This final rule
also complies with the President's memorandum of January 18, 2011,
entitled Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation (76
FR 3827). As discussed above, promulgation of this final rule is a
nondiscretionary ministerial act required by a statute and it creates a
regulatory exception.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. However, as noted above, this is a non-
discretionary action mandated by statute, and such actions do not
require preparation of a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532. In addition,
FMCSA is not required to prepare a statement for this final rule
because the Agency has not issued an NPRM prior to this action. 2
U.S.C. 1532.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Given FRA's
authority under the RSIA of 2008 to regulate the HOS for certain
carriers previously regulated by FMCSA under 49 CFR part 395, FMCSA
expects the population of affected entities subject to its HOS
paperwork burden may be reduced slightly. However, due to the total
number of entities covered, the impact to the burden from this change
is expected to be de minimis. Therefore, FMCSA has not modified its
burden estimate based on this final rule. FMCSA will consider this
impact during its next planned update to the associated Information
Collection Request.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agency analyzed this final rule in accordance with all
statutory and regulatory policies under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

determined under FMCSA environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that the provision of this rule is
categorically excluded (CE) based on Appendix 2, section 6(b) of the
FMCSA order. This is a technical amendment needed to conform the
regulations to a statutory mandate. In addition to the NEPA
requirements to examine impacts on air quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA)
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) also requires FMCSA to analyze the
potential impact of its actions on air quality and to ensure that FMCSA
actions conform to State and local air quality implementation plans.
The additional contributions to air emissions from this action are
expected to fall within the CAA de minimis standards and are not
expected to be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's General
Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. We
determined that this final rule does not pose an environmental risk to
health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This final rule does not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132, Federalism Assessment, and it has
been determined that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct
effect or sufficient federalism implications for States that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this
document directly preempts any State law or regulation. This final rule
does not impose additional costs or burdens on the States.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it would not be
likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration amends 49 CFR part 395 as follows:

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 395 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, and 31502; sec.
113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-
159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132,
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub.
L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432. 122
Stat. 4860-4866; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. Amend Sec.  395.1 to revise paragraph (a)(1) and add paragraph (r)
to read as follows:

Sec.  395.1  Scope of the rules in this part.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The rules in this part apply to all motor carriers and drivers,
except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (r) of this section.
* * * * *
    (r) Railroad signal employees. The provisions of this part shall
not apply to a signal employee, as defined in Sec.  395.2, who operates
a commercial motor vehicle, is engaged in installing, repairing, or
maintaining signal systems, is employed by a railroad carrier or a
contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier, while regulated by
the Federal Railroad Administration.

0
3. Amend Sec.  395.2 by adding the definition ``signal employee'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  395.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Signal employee, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 21101(4), means an
individual who is engaged in installing, repairing, or maintaining
signal systems.
* * * * *

    Issued on: May 2, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-11018 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72739-72741]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30354]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65792; File No. SR-CHX-2011-31]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Trade Processing Fee

November 18, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 9, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CHX proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to amend the Trade
Processing Fee. The text of this proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com and in the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Through this proposal, the Exchange seeks to modify the definition
of its Trade Processing Fee to conform to recent rule changes. Trade
Processing Fees are charged by the Exchange for certain non-CHX trades
to the Clearing Participants to the transaction. These non-CHX
transactions are entered into the Exchange's systems by an
Institutional Broker and submitted by the Exchange to a Qualified
Clearing Agency for clearance and settlement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 65615 (Oct. 24, 2011),
76 FR 67239 (Oct. 31, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-17) which added Article 21,
Rule 6 describing the process by which Institutional Brokers can
submit non-CHX trades for clearance and settlement via the
Exchange's systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, the Exchange restricted the imposition of Trade
Processing Fees on transactions executed directly in the over-the-
counter (``OTC'') marketplace by an Institutional Broker. As part of
this change, Trade Processing Fees could only be imposed on cross
trades which originated with an Institutional Broker and were
transmitted to and executed by another broker-dealer (which was not an
Institutional Broker) in the OTC marketplace and which were submitted
to clearing by the Exchange's systems.\6\ This amendment reflected
discussions between the Exchange and the staff of the Commission
regarding limitations on the ability of Institutional Brokers to
directly execute trades in the OTC marketplace. Since that time, the
Exchange has reclassified Institutional Brokers as not operating on the
Exchange, which permits such firms to directly execute trades in the
OTC marketplace.\7\ The Exchange therefore proposes to modify the
definition of Trade Processing Fee in its Fee Schedule to remove that
restriction. Moreover, the Exchange has added Article 21, Rule 6
governing the submission by the Exchange of non-CHX trades entered
through an Institutional Broker to a Qualified Clearing Agency for
clearance and settlement. In recognition of these two new provisions of
the CHX rules, the Exchange proposes to define Trade Processing Fees as
fees are charged for transactions entered by an Institutional Broker
into the Exchange's systems and submitted to a Qualified Clearing
Agency pursuant to Article 21, Rule 6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 64953 (July 25, 2011),
76 FR 45626 (July 29, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-19).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 65633 (Oct. 26, 2011),
76 FR 67509 (Nov. 1, 2011) (SR-CHX-2011-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed definition, Trade Processing Fees would be
charged for transactions executed otherwise than on the Exchange (in
most cases, in the OTC marketplace) that originated with an
Institutional Broker and were executed by that Institutional Broker, or
transmitted to and executed by another broker-dealer, and reported to a
Qualified Clearing Agency by the Exchange after entry of the relevant
clearing information by the Institutional Broker into the Exchange's
systems. The fees are also charged for transactions which were executed
in another trading center by a third party broker-dealer, which then
utilizes an Institutional Broker as its agent to enter them into the
Exchange's systems for submission to a Qualified Clearing Agency for
clearance and settlement. These third-party transactions may include
both cross transactions executed in the OTC marketplace by the third-
party broker-dealer, as well as purchases or sales of securities by the
third party broker-dealer on another exchange or other trading center.
The Exchange does not propose to charge a Trade Processing Fee for
single-sided purchases and sales of securities on another exchange or
in the OTC marketplace by Institutional Brokers and submitted to
clearing as a riskless principal transaction pursuant to Article 21,
Rule 6(b).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The execution of the first leg of a riskless principal
transaction may well have entailed the payment of a transactional
fee to the trading center on which it was executed. The Exchange
believes that an imposition of a Trade Processing Fee on riskless
principal transactions could result in higher transactional costs
for the parties to the transaction, which could render the
Exchange's provision of clearing submission services non-
competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose to alter the rate imposed for Trade
Processing Fees as part of this proposal. The proposed changes would
become effective on November 29, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. Pursuant to this
proposal, Trade Processing Fees are charged to the Clearing
Participants involved in certain transactions which were not executed
on the CHX's trading facilities, but submitted for clearance and
settlement by the Exchange's systems. The Exchange believes that it is
fair and reasonable for it to charge a fee for the services it provides
to its Participants which elect to submit non-CHX trades to clearing
via the Exchange's systems. This proposal conforms the definition of
Trade Processing Fees to recent changes in its rules, including both
changes in the status of Institutional Brokers which permits them to
directly execute trades in the OTC marketplace and the addition of new
Rule 6 under Article 21, which permits Institutional Brokers to submit
those trades (and others) to a Qualified Clearing Agency through the
Exchange's systems. Pursuant to the proposed new definition, a Trade
Processing Fee would be charged for transactions submitted to a
Qualified Clearing Agency pursuant to Article 21, Rule 6(a). These fees
would be imposed based upon the nature of the activity handled through
the Exchange's systems and are fair and non-discriminatory in nature,
and the Exchange therefore believes that the imposition of a Trade
Processing Fee as defined in this proposal is appropriate. Permitting
the Exchange to charge a Trade Processing Fee for its services
associated with the clearing submissions would allow it to compete with
other exchanges, such as Nasdaq, which provide similar services to its
members for a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed rule change is to take effect pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \12\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or

other charge applicable to the Exchange's members and non-members,
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2011-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-31 and should be
submitted on or before December 16, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30354 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P