Arguments for redefining the scope of the chat rule to the Tri State Mining District 01_ 31_ 2006 1 Memorandum Subject: Arguments for redefining the scope of the proposed chat rule to encompass the Tri State Mining District of Oklahoma, Kansasa and Missouri To: Docket From: Alexander Livnat Date: 1/ 31/ 2006 The purpose of this memo is to present the basis the Agency used to define the areal scope of the proposed chat rule. It is the Agency's opinion that the term " Tar Creek,

Oklahoma Mining District" is not a recognizable geological area. This memo provides background supporting the Agency's position regarding scope.

Introduction Title VI, Section 6006 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Use of Granular Mine Tailings, states:

" 1. `( a) Mine Tailings

`( 1) IN GENERAL   establish criteria . for the safe and environmentally protective use of granular mine tailings from the Tar Creek, Oklahoma Mining District, known as ` chat', for

`( A) cement or concrete projects; and `( B) transportation construction projects  that are carried out, in whole or in part, using Federal funds.

`( 2) REQUIREMENTS   in establishing criteria under paragraph ( 1), the Administrator shall consider  `( A) the current and previous uses of granular mine tailings as an aggregate for asphalt; and `( B) any environmental and public health risks and benefits derived from the removal, transportation, and use in transportation projects of granular mine tailings".

Based on conversations we have had with the geological survey departments in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri, and in reference to regional geologic studies ( see footnote citations), Tar Creek, Oklahoma, while a clearly defined Superfund site, is not recognized as a mining district. Instead, it is hereby proposed that the scope of the Arguments for redefining the scope of the chat rule to the Tri State Mining District 01_ 31_ 2006 2 proposed rulemaking should address chat, a mine milling by product associated with the geographically, geologically and historically coherent lead zinc Tri State Mining District in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. In addition to Ottawa County in Oklahoma, this district also includes Cherokee County in southeastern Kansas, and Jasper, Newton, Lawrence, and Barry Counties in southwestern Missouri1. The dimensions of the Tri State Mining District are about 100 miles ( east to west) x 30 miles ( north to south), and it extends from east of Springfield, Missouri, to slightly west of the Picher Field of Kansas and Oklahoma2.

Between 1850 and 1964, several years prior to the closing of the last active mine, the Tri State Mining District produced 2.8 million tons of lead and 11.6 million tons of zinc, with a total value of $ 1.48 billion3, making it into the source of most of all the lead and zinc ever mined in the United States. The lion share of this production took place in the Picher Field in the Oklahoma and Kansas portions of the Tri State Mining District4.

Arguments in support of the Tri State Mining District as coherent scope for the proposed rule The arguments justifying the Tri State Mining District as a coherent scope for the chat rulemaking are as follows:

1. The Tri State Mining District is a product of similar mineralization processes, confined to a well defined stratigraphic interval, and characterized by wall rock alteration properties that set it apart from related lead zinc mineralization districts elsewhere in the United States. Specifically, unlike other so called Mississippi Valley Type lead zinc deposits in the United States which occur in Cambrian and Ordovician limestones and dolomites, the Tri State Mining District ores occur in Mississippian limestones containing a pervasive wall rock alteration of dolomite and microcrystalline silica ( chert) 5. Actually, the term chat is derived from the silicified ( cherty) wallrock6. In the Tri State Mining District, zinc is characteristically five to six times more abundant than lead.

1 National Priorities List sites in Oklahoma: http:// www. epa. gov/ supefund/ sites/ npl/ ok. htm; National Priorities List sites in Kansas: http:// www. epa. gov/ supefund/ sites/ npl/ ks. htm; and National Priorities List sites in Missouri: http:// www. epa. gov/ supefund/ sites/ npl/ mo. htm; sites accessed on 9/ 12/ 2005. Mineral Resources and Industry Map of Missouri, 1988, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Ardell W. Rueff. 2 Brockie, D. C., Hare Jr., E. H, and Paul R. Dingess, The Geology and Ore Deposits of the Tri State District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, in: Ore Deposits of the United States, 1933 1967, The Graton Sales Volume, Volume I, J. D. Ridge, Editor, The America Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroluem Engineers, New York, 1968. 3 D. C. Brockie et al., Table 1. 4 McKnight, E. T. and Richard P. Fischer, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Picher Field Oklahoma and Kansas, United States Geologic Survey Professional Paper 588, 1970, Table 4. 5 D. C. Brockie et al., page 401. 6 David L. Leach et al., Mississippi Valley Type Pb Zn Deposits, in Edward A. du Bray, Editor, Preliminary Compilation of Descriptive Geoenvironmental Mineral Deposit Models, U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 95 831, Version 1.0: http:// pubs. usgs. gov/ of/ 1995/ ofr 95 0831, accessed on 9/ 12/ 2005. Arguments for redefining the scope of the chat rule to the Tri State Mining District 01_ 31_ 2006 3 In terms of mineralogical and metal associations, the Tri State Mining District shares the following common characteristics7: ( a) Major metals: Zn, Pb ( b) Minor and trace metals: Fe, Cu, Cd, Ba, Ag, Ge, Ga, Co, Ni, In, Sb, Bi ( c) Dominant Fe sulfide: Pyrite ( d) Major ore sulfides: Sphalerite, galena ( e) Minor sulfides: Chalcopyrite, marcasite, bravoite ( f) Primary sulfate: Barite ( g) Major carbonate: Dolomite ( h) Minor carbonate: Calcite ( i) Secondary oxides, arsenates, sulfates, oxyhydroxides etc.: None.

2. Due to the geological and mineralogical similarities and common mining history, chat has been associated with similar ore milling operations across the Tri State Mining District, as they evolved with time8. According to several sources, there are currently between 50 70 million cubic yards of chat stockpiled on the surface of the Tar Creek Superfund site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma9. In Missouri, there are approximately 23 million cubic yards remaining out of an original total of close to 400 million cubic yards10. In Kansas there are estimated 5.3 million cubic yards of chat11. Both surface piles of chat, as well as underground mining areas extend uninterrupted across the Oklahoma Kansas state line; they are part of the well defined Picher Mining District that straddles Oklahoma and Kansas. The fact that the mining piles of the Tar Creek Superfund site straddle the Kansas line means that air and water borne chat and finer tailings are amenable for dispersion across the adjacent areas of both states12.

According to the Geological Survey of Kansas Final Report on mining impacts associated with the zinc lead mining in southeastern Kansas13, the environmental and health impacts of this area as straddling state lines were recognized already in the late 1970s:

7 Nora K. Foley et al., Environmental Geochemistry of Platform Carbonate Hosted Sulfide Deposits; Chapter E, in Progress on Geoenvironmental Models for Selected Mineral Deposit Types, Robert R. Seal II and Nora K. Foley, Editors, U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02 195, Online Version 1.0: http:// pubs. usgs. gov/ of/ 2002/ of02 195, accessed on 9/ 12/ 2005. 8 For instance, flotation was commercially introduced in the mid 1920s. 9 E. g., Nazimuddin M. Wasiuddin et al., A Laboratory Study to Optimize the Use of Raw Chat in Hot Mix Asphalt for Pavement Application: Final Report. University of Oklahoma School of Engineering and Environmental Science, August 2005. 10 EPA Region VII Action Memo from Mark Doolan to Michael Sanderson, 9/ 26/ 2000, addressing OU1 of the Orongo Duenweg Mining Belt Site, Jasper County, Missouri; units converted from tons to cubic yards using an approximate specific density of 2.6 tons/ cubic yard. 11 Dames & Moore 1993, p. 2 20. 2 For an illustrative satellite photo, see http:// maps. google. com/ maps? ll= 36.995149, 94.835014& spn= 0.040377,0.076321& t= h& hl= en 13 J. R. McCauley, L. L. Brady and F. W. Wilson, Study of Stability Problems and Hazard Evaluation of the Kansas Portion of the Tri State Mining Area; Originally prepared in January 1983 as Kansas Geological Survey Open file Report 83 2. http:// www. kgs. ku. edu/ Publications/ OFR/ 1983/ 83 2/ 03_ intro. html, accessed 9/ 15/ 2005. Arguments for redefining the scope of the chat rule to the Tri State Mining District 01_ 31_ 2006 4 "  in 1979, congressmen Whittaker of Kansas, Taylor of Missouri, and Synar of Oklahoma expressed the concerns of their constituents in Washington, D. C., and requested the recommendations of the U. S. Bureau of Mines. Before taking corrective action, the Bureau of Mines proposed a thorough study of the Tri State mining district to identify all mined areas and mine related hazards and to make recommendations for remedial action. The Bureau of Mines chose cooperative agreements between itself and the state geological surveys of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma to accomplish this task"( emphasis added).

3. The Tri State Mining District hosts a couple of watersheds   those of the Spring River and Tar Creek. The Spring River that discharges into the Neosho River in northeastern Oklahoma after crossing into Oklahoma southeast of the town of Baxter Springs is fed by tributaries originating in Cherokee Lowlands of southeast Kansas and in the Ozark Plateau in southwest Missouri. Tar Creek emerges from southeast Kansas, crosses into Oklahoma west of the town of Picher, Oklahoma and ultimately discharges into the Neosho River in northeastern Oklahoma. Consequently, any water dispersed pollution of toxic metals related to the mining legacy of the Tri State Mining District that originates in an upper watershed state( s) is prone to impact its down watershed neighbors as well.

Conclusion The term ` Tar Creek Mining District' as defined in Section 6006 of the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 is not a recognized physical entity. Instead, the most logical scope to address the beneficial use of chat is that of the Tri State Mining District, a geologically, geographically and historically well defined area. In the Tri State Mining District, zinc and lead ores were mined for over 120 years from a silicified, Mississippian age carbonate host rock possessing common mineralogical characteristics that are distinguishable from other lead zinc mining districts in the United States. The Tri State Mining District encompasses Ottawa County in northeastern Oklahoma ( where the Tar Creek Superfund site is located), as well as Cherokee County in southeastern Kansas, and Jasper, Newton, Lawrence, and Barry counties in southwestern Missouri. The ore processing chat piles left across the Tri State area as the legacy of the single largest zinc lead mining district in the United States are also a common source for hazardous pollution via air and water dispersion through shared watersheds, as recognized already in the late 1970s by congressional delegates from the three states and by the US Bureau of Mines.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59502]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0375; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-9]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Gordonsville, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Gordonsville, VA,
to accommodate the new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures serving
Gordonsville Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and
airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 25, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Gordonsville, VA (76 FR 44287). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. With the
exception of an editorial change, this rule is the same as that
proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Gordonsville, VA, to provide the controlled
airspace required to support the new RNAV GPS standard instrument
approach procedures developed for Gordonsville Municipal Airport. This
action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Gordonsville Municipal
Airport, Gordonsville, VA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 Gordonsville, VA [New]

Gordonsville Municipal Airport, VA
    (Lat. 38[deg]09'22'' N., long. 78[deg]09'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.7-mile radius of the Gordonsville Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 19, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-24665 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69783-69786]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65681; File No. SR-C2-2011-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
Concerning Industry Directors and the Nomination of Representative
Directors

November 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 21, 2011, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. On November 1, 2011, the Exchange submitted a technical
amendment (``Amendment No. 1'') to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ As provided in the instructions to Form 19b-4, the Exchange
noted in Item 2 of its filing that it needed to obtain, but had not
yet obtained, formal approval from its Board of Directors for the
Bylaw, Certificate of Incorporation, and Voting Agreement changes
set forth in this proposed rule change. The Exchange also noted that
it needed to obtain, but had not yet obtained, approval from CBOE
Holdings, the Exchange's sole stockholder, of the changes to the
Certificate of Incorporation and Voting Agreement. The Exchange
stated that once these approvals were obtained, it would file a
technical amendment to this proposed rule change to reflect these
approvals. Amendment No. 1 reflected that the requisite approvals
were obtained on November 1, 2011, and represented that no further
action in connection with this proposed rule change was required. In
addition, Amendment No. 1 contained the Exchange's consent to an
extension of time for Commission consideration of this proposed rule
change for an additional thirty-five days after November 1, 2011
(the filing date of this amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend its Bylaws to eliminate the
requirement that at least 30% of the members of the Board of Directors
must be Industry Directors; (ii) amend its Bylaws relating to its
Advisory Board; (iii) amend its Bylaws relating to the nomination of
Representative Directors; and (iv) make conforming changes to the C2
Certificate of Incorporation and the Voting Agreement between C2 and
CBOE Holdings, Inc. (``CBOE Holdings''). The text of the proposed
amendments to C2's Bylaws, C2's Certificate of Incorporation and the
Voting Agreement are available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at
the Commission.

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 Exchange 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to (i) Amend C2's
Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that at least 30% of the members of
the Board of Directors must be Industry Directors; (ii) amend C2's
Bylaws relating to its Advisory Board; (iii) amend C2's Bylaws relating
to the nomination of Representative Directors; and (iv) make conforming
changes to C2's Certificate of Incorporation and the Voting Agreement
between C2 and CBOE Holdings.
(1) Elimination of 30% Industry Director Requirement
    Based on the Exchange's experience since its launch in October
2010, the Exchange believes that it is no longer necessary that its
Bylaws contain a requirement that its Board of Directors be composed of
at least 30% Industry Directors. The Exchange believes that eliminating
the requirement that at least 30% of its Board be composed of Industry
Directors as defined in the Bylaws provides it with appropriate
flexibility as it evaluates the structure and composition of its Board
in the future. The Exchange notes that it has not made a determination
as to whether it will reduce (or eliminate) the number of directors on
its Board who qualify as an Industry Director as defined in the Bylaws.
Even if the number of individuals who would technically qualify as
Industry Directors on the Board of Directors is reduced, the Exchange
recognizes the importance of having directors who have industry
expertise and knowledge (whether those directors are Industry Directors
or Non-Industry Directors). Additionally, no matter what the
composition of its Board is, the Exchange intends to maintain the fair
representation of its Trading Permit Holders in the selection of its
directors and administration of its affairs consistent with Section
6(b)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),
as further described below.
    In the event the Exchange determines in the future to reduce the
number of directors on its Board who would qualify as an Industry
Director, the Exchange believes that a Board composed of all or nearly
all Non-Industry Directors would be consistent with the Act, including
Section 6(b)(3) of the Act relating to the fair representation of C2
Trading Permit Holders in the selection of directors and the
administration of the Exchange.\4\ The Exchanges also notes that in
such a case, at all times at least 20% of the directors serving on the
Board shall be Representative Directors nominated (or otherwise
selected through the petition process) by the Representative Director
Nominating Body as provided in Section 3.2 of the Bylaws. Under Section
3.2, the Representative Director Nominating Body provides a mechanism
for Trading Permit Holders to provide input with respect to the
nominees for Representative Directors and also allows for Trading
Permit Holders to nominate alternative candidates by petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48946
(December 17, 2003), 68 FR 74678 (December 24, 2003) (approving SR-
NYSE-2003-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposed elimination of the requirement that
at least 30% of the Board shall be composed of Industry Directors, C2
also proposes to amend Section 4.4 of its Bylaws relating to the
composition of the Nominating and Governance Committee. Specifically,
C2 proposes to delete the clause that states that the Nominating and
Governance Committee shall consist of both Industry and Non-Industry
Directors, given that at some point in the future the Board may not
have Industry Directors serving on it.
(2) Amendments Relating to the Advisory Board
    Recently, C2 amended its Bylaws to provide for the establishment of
an Advisory Board which shall advise the Office of the Chairman
regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders. C2 now
proposes to amend Section 6.1 of the Bylaws to clarify that the
Exchange ``will'' (as opposed to ``may'') have an Advisory Board, which
shall advise the Board of Directors in addition to the Office of the
Chairman regarding matters that impact Trading Permit Holders. C2 also
proposes to amend Section 6.1 of its Bylaws to expressly provide that
at least two members of the Advisory Board shall be Trading Permit
Holders or persons associated with Trading Permit Holders. C2 notes
that the Advisory Board provides a mechanism for Trading Permit Holders
to provide industry feedback to C2's Chairman and CEO, Executive Vice
Chairman, President and Lead Director, all of whom are members of the
Advisory Board, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.
(3) Nomination of Representative Directors
    The Exchange Bylaws will continue to require that at least 20% of
C2's directors must be Representative Directors. However, the Exchange
proposes to amend its Bylaws in a number of respects with regard to the
nomination process for the Representative Directors. Currently, as
described in Section 3.2 of the Bylaws, the Representative Directors
are nominated (or otherwise selected through a petition process) by the
Industry-Director Subcommittee of the C2 Nominating and Governance
Committee. The Industry-Director Subcommittee is composed of all of the
Industry Directors serving on the Nominating and Governance Committee.
C2 Trading Permit Holders may nominate alternative Representative
Director candidates to those nominated by the Industry Director
Subcommittee, in which case a Run-off Election is held in which C2's
Trading Permit Holders vote to determine which candidates will be
elected to the C2 Board of Directors to serve as Representative
Directors.
    Because it is possible that at some point in the future C2's Board
may not have Industry Directors as defined in the Bylaws serving on it,
C2 proposes to amend its Bylaws to eliminate the requirement in Section
3.2 that the Representative Directors must be Industry Directors. In
addition, C2 proposes to incorporate into the Bylaws the concept of a
Representative Director Nominating Body which shall mean the current
Industry-Director Subcommittee of the Nominating and Governance
Committee if there are at least two Industry Directors on the
Nominating and Governance Committee. If the Nominating and Governance
Committee has less than two Industry Directors as defined in the
Bylaws, then the Representative Director Nominating Body shall mean the
Trading Permit Holders Subcommittee of the Advisory Board.\5\ The
Representative Director Nominating Body will nominate the
Representative Directors in accordance with the provisions of Section
3.2 of the Bylaws. In that regard, it will perform the functions
currently performed by the Industry-Director Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed new Bylaw definition 1.1(k) and the proposed
changes to Sections 4.4 and 6.1 of the Bylaws.

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

    In addition, C2 proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws with
regard to the time period by which the Representative Director nominees
are announced via circular to the Trading Permit Holders, the deadline
for Trading Permit Holders to nominate alternative candidates via
petition, and the timing of any Run-Off Election. Presently, Section
3.2 of the Bylaws provides that the Industry-Director Subcommittee
shall issue a circular announcing its Representative Director nominees
not later than January 15th, or the first business day thereafter if
the 15th is not a business day. Trading Permit Holders may nominate
alternative candidates for the Representative Director positions by
petition, which petition needs to be filed with the Secretary of the
Exchange not later than 5 p.m. on the Monday preceding the first Friday
in February (or the first business day thereafter in the event that
Monday occurs on a holiday). If one or more valid petitions are
received, a Run-Off Election is held at least 20 days prior to the
mailing of any notice of the annual meeting.
    C2 believes that it would be useful and appropriate to modify these
deadlines in order to provide the Exchange, the Nominating and
Governance Committee and the Representative Director Nominating Body
with additional flexibility. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2
to provide that:

     The Representative Director Nominating Body shall issue
a circular to the Trading Permit Holders identifying the
Representative Director nominees not earlier than December 1st and
not later than January 15th, or the first business day thereafter if
January 15th is not a business day;
     Trading Permit Holders may nominate alternative
candidates for election to the Representative Director positions to
be elected in a given year by submitting a petition to the Secretary
not later than 5 p.m. (Chicago time) on the 10th business day
following the issuance of the circular to the Trading Permit Holders
identifying the Representative Director nominees selected by the
Representative Director Nominating Body (``Petition Deadline''). The
Exchange believes that 10 business days is a reasonable and
sufficient amount of time for Trading Permit Holders to obtain a
petition signed by individuals representing not more than 10% of the
total outstanding Trading Permits at that time to nominate by
petition alternative candidates for election to the Representative
Director positions. C2 notes that 10 business days is consistent
with the minimum time period that was effective in 2010 and that
would be available in 2011 under the existing Bylaws for the
nomination of alternative candidates by petition; and
     The Run-off Election will be held not more than 45 days
after the Petition Deadline.

    As noted, the Exchange believes that modifying these deadlines as
proposed will provide the Exchange with additional flexibility and
enable the Exchange to complete the process for determining its
nominees at an earlier point in time without changing the time period.
Modifying these deadlines also will assist in synchronizing C2's
nomination process with the nomination process for C2's parent company,
CBOE Holdings. In addition to the above changes, C2 proposes to replace
all references to the Industry-Director Subcommittee in the Bylaws with
the term Representative Director Nominating Body.
    Finally, C2 proposes to amend Section 2.2 of its Bylaws relating to
the timing of its annual meeting to clarify that in no event shall the
annual meeting date each year be prior to the completion of the process
for the nomination of the Representative Directors for that annual
meeting as set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
    C2 is not proposing to amend any other provisions with regard to
the timing and process for the nomination of the Representative
Directors.
(4) Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation and Voting Agreement
    C2 also proposes to make conforming changes to its Certificate of
Incorporation and the Voting Agreement between it and its parent
company, CBOE Holdings. Specifically, C2 proposes to amend its
Certificate of Incorporation and the Voting Agreement to replace the
references to the Industry-Director Subcommittee with the term
Representative Director Nominating Body. It also proposes to make non-
substantive changes to the Voting Agreement.
2. Statutory Basis
    For the reasons set forth above, C2 believes that this filing is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \7\ and Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \8\ in particular, in that (i) it enables C2 to be so organized
as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act
and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its Trading Permit Holders
and persons associated with its Trading Permit Holders, with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of C2 and (ii) to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, C2 believes that the proposed changes will improve and
add greater flexibility to C2's governance structure (i) by eliminating
the requirement that the Board of Directors shall be composed of at
least 30% Industry Directors as defined in the Bylaws; (ii) by
modifying the process for the nomination of Representative Directors,
including granting the Trading Permit Holders and persons associated
with Trading Permit Holders on the Advisory Board the authority to
nominate the Representative Directors in those instances in which the
Nominating and Governance Committee has less than two Industry
Directors; (iii) by amending the Bylaws to provide that the Exchange
will establish an Advisory Board, which C2 views as a useful vehicle
for the Board to receive input from the perspective of Trading Permit
Holders and with respect to matters of interest to Trading Permit
Holders; and (iv) by modifying the deadlines relating to the nomination
of the Representative Directors, which C2 believes will provide it, the
Nominating and Governance Committee and the Representative Director
Nominating Body with additional flexibility with respect to the timing
of the nomination process so that the Exchange is not locked into
specific dates that may not work well during a particular year.
Additionally, C2 believes that this filing is consistent with Section
6(b)(3) of the Act in that C2's Bylaws will continue to provide for the
fair representation of C2 Trading Permit Holders in the selection of
directors and the administration of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate
and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    As reflected in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange has consented to an
extension of time for Commission consideration of this proposal for an
additional thirty-five days after the filing of Amendment No. 1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Amendment No. 1 was filed on November 1, 2011. See supra
note 3 (describing Amendment No. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2011-031 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-C2-2011-031. 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 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 offices 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-C2-2011-031, and should be submitted on or before
November 30, 2011.

    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. 2011-29036 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1773-1775]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0917; FRL-8805-6]

Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acid in or on All Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of a
regulation for residues of the plant growth regulator, polymeric
polyhydroxy acid, in or on all food commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0917 and the pesticide petition number (PP), by
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0917 and the pesticide petition number (PP 9F7645). EPA's policy
is that all comments received will be included in the docket without
change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov
website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menyon Adams, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of a
regulation in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of polymeric polyhydroxy
acid in or on all food commodities. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petition described in this notice contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment of a
regulation for residues of the pesticide in or on all food commodities.
Further information on the petition may be obtained through the
petition summary referenced in this unit.
     PP 9F7645. Floratine Biosciences, Inc., 153 N. Main Street, Suite
100, Collierville, TN 38017, proposes to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant growth
regulator, polymeric polyhydroxy acid, in or on all food commodities.
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because this is
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 5, 2010.
 Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-490; Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38158-38160]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506; FRL-8938-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997
Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Johnstown (Cambria and
Indiana Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County)
and York (York County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas for the 1997
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This proposed determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that
these areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS based on the 2006-2008 data. In addition, quality controlled and
quality assured monitoring data for 2009 that are available in the EPA
Air Quality System (AQS) database, but not yet certified, show that
these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If this
proposed determination is made final, the requirements for these areas
to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment
of the standard shall be suspended for so long as each of these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0506 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0506. 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
V. What Is EPA's Proposed Action?
VI. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas
have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination
is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data showing that these areas have monitored
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006-2008
data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured monitoring
data for 2009 that are available in the EPA AQS database, but not yet
certified, show that these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's
PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the
requirements for the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York,
Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas to submit an
attainment demonstration, 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 each area
continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, the proposed determination would: (1)
For

the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, suspend the requirements to
submit for each area an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably
available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available
control technologies (RACT)), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
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 each area have violated the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate from, and not influence or
otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements
for the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment 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
determinations would not be equivalent to the redesignation of these
areas to attainment based on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that these
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, and these areas would thereafter
have to address the pertinent requirements.
    The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register
notice, that the air quality data show attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, is not equivalent to the redesignation of these
areas to attainment. This proposed action, if finalized, would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), because we would not yet have an approved
maintenance plan for these areas as required under section 175A of the
CAA, nor a determination that these areas have met the other
requirements for redesignation. The designation status of these areas
would remain nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that these areas meet the CAA requirements
for redesignation to attainment.
    This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination
that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment areas have clean data for 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 section 50.13.
EPA is currently in the process of making designation determinations,
as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    At this point, EPA has not made any designation determination for
the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment areas based on the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. This proposed determination, and any final determination, will
have no effect on, and is not related to, any future designation
determination that EPA may make based on the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for these Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Conversely, any future designation determination of these Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment areas based on the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, will not have any effect on the determination proposed by this
notice.
    If this proposed determination is made final and the Johnstown,
Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment areas continue to demonstrate attainment with the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for these Pennsylvania
PM2.5 nonattainment areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, 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 remain suspended, regardless of whether EPA designates these
areas as nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Once these areas are designated for the 2006 NAAQS, they will
have to meet all applicable requirements for that designation.

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 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a twenty-four hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based
on a 3-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 section 107(d)(1) of the 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 Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania nonattainment
areas were designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
(see 40 CFR part 81).

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5 consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded in the EPA AQS database for the Johnstown,
Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment areas from 2006 through the present time. On the basis of
that review, EPA has concluded that these areas meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006-2008 data. In addition,
quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data for 2009 that
are available in the EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, show that
these areas continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Sec.  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/m3.
    (2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards
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/m3.
    Table 1 shows the design values for the 1997 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York,
Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment area monitors for the years
2006-2008. Table 2 shows the design values for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for these same monitors and the same three-year
period.

Table 1--Design Values for the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
                                   in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997 24-Hour
                           Location                              AQS site ID       attainment       2006-2008
                                                                                standard      Design values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambria County (Johnstown, PA)...............................      42-021-0011               65               35
Lancaster County (Lancaster, PA).............................      42-071-0007               65               37
Berks County (Reading, PA)...................................      42-011-0011               65               34
York County (York, PA).......................................      42-133-0008               65               35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2--Design Values for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and York, Pennsylvania
                                   in Micrograms per Cubic Meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997 Annual
                           Location                              AQS site ID       attainment       2006-2008
                                                                                standard      Design values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambria County (Johnstown, PA)...............................      42-021-0011             15.0             14.4
Lancaster County (Lancaster, PA).............................      42-071-0007             15.0             14.5
Berks County (Reading, PA)...................................      42-011-0011             15.0             13.6
York County (York, PA).......................................      42-133-0008             15.0             14.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicate that the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas
have met and continue 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. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. What Is EPA's Proposed Action?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading and York, Pennsylvania nonattainment areas for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this
determination, it would suspend the requirements for these areas to
submit an attainment demonstration, 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 so long as these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to the determination of the
1997 fine particle standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading and
York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 24, 2009.
Judith M. Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-18341 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P