[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 189 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54628-54630]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21213]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0369; FRL-8996-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department's (MCAQD) Rule 510 as part of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These rule revisions concern updates to the
maximum levels of ambient air pollution for the protection of public
health and welfare. We are finalizing our proposed approval of this
rule to regulate ambient air emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on November 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0369. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 23, 2021 (86 FR 32848), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the Arizona SIP:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.................................             510  Air Quality Standards...      12/11/2019      12/20/2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the
Arizona SIP. The December 11, 2019 version of Rule 510 will replace the
previously approved version of this rule in the Arizona SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the MCAQD
rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that
plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the
CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\ The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: September 22, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. In Sec.  52.120(c), amend table 4 by revising the entry ``Rule 510''
after the heading ``Regulation V--Air Quality Standards and Area
Classification''.

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                     Table 4--EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State effective
        County citation            Title/subject           date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Regulation V--Air Quality Standards and Area Classification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 510.......................  Air Quality        December 11, 2019  October 4, 2021,   The December 11, 2019
                                  Standards.                            [INSERT FEDERAL    version of Rule 510
                                                                        REGISTER           replaces the November
                                                                        CITATION].         30, 2016 version that
                                                                                had been approved on
                                                                                November 1, 2006 (74
                                                                                FR 57612).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-21213 Filed 10-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87822-87825]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27782]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99160; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open
for Trading

December 13, 2023.
    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 December 11, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') 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. 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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 404,
Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/miax-options/rule-filings, at MIAX'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 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts
Open for Trading.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
Interpretations and Policies .02 to expand the Short Term Option Series
Program to permit the listing of two Wednesday expirations for options
on United States Oil Fund, LP (``USO''), United States Natural Gas
Fund, LP (``UNG''), SPDR Gold Shares (``GLD''), iShares Silver Trust
(``SLV''), and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (``TLT'')
(collectively ``Exchange Traded Products'' or ``ETPs''). This is a
competitive filing based on proposals submitted by Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``Nasdaq ISE''),\4\ and the Cboe Options Exchange (``Cboe
Exchange'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that all the rules of Chapter IV of the
MIAX Options Exchange, including Rule 404, are incorporated by
reference to MIAX Emerald.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98905 (November 13,
2023) (SR-ISE-2023-11) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to
Amend the Short Term Option Series Program to Permit the Listing of
Two Wednesday Expirations for Options on Certain Exchange Traded
Products) (``Nasdaq ISE Approval'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99035 (November 29,
2023), 88 FR 84367 (December 5, 2023) (SR-Cboe-2023-062).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, as set forth in Policy .02 of Rule 404, after an option
class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the
Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a
business day (``Short Term Option Opening Date'') series of options on
that class that expire at the close of business on each of the next
five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays on which
monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (``Friday
Short Term Option Expiration Dates''). The Exchange may have no

more than a total of five Friday Short Term Option Expiration Dates
(``Short Term Option Weekly Expirations''). If the Exchange is not open
for business on the respective Thursday or Friday, the Short Term
Option Opening Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be
the first business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or
Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on a
Friday, the Short Term Option Expiration Date for Short Term Option
Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to
that Friday.
    Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading series of options
on the symbols provided in Table 1 of Policy .02 of Rule 404 that
expire at the close of business on each of the next two Mondays,
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively, that are business
days and are not business days in which monthly options series or
Quarterly Options Series expire (``Short Term Option Daily
Expirations''). For those symbols listed in Table 1, the Exchange may
have no more than a total of two Short Term Option Daily Expirations
for each of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday expirations at one
time.
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option
Daily Expirations to permit the listing and trading of options on USO,
UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT expiring on Wednesdays. The Exchange proposes to
permit two Short Term Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week
for each Wednesday expiration at one time.\6\ In order to effectuate
the proposed changes, the Exchange would add USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and
TLT to Table 1 of Policy .02 of Rule 404, which specifies each symbol
that qualifies as a Short Term Option Daily Expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Consistent with the current operation of the rule, the
Exchange notes that if it adds a Wednesday expiration on a Tuesday,
it could technically list three outstanding Wednesday expirations at
one time. The Exchange will therefore clarify the rule text in
Policy .02 of Rule 404 to specify that it can list two Short Term
Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week for each Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Wednesday USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT expirations will
be similar to the current Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Short Term Option
Daily Expirations set forth in Policy .02 of Rule 404, such that the
Exchange may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a
business day (beyond the current week) series of options on USO, UNG,
GLD, SLV, and TLT to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a
business day and is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series
expire (``Wednesday USO Expirations,'' ``Wednesday UNG Expirations,''
``Wednesday GLD Expirations,'' ``Wednesday SLV Expirations,'' and
``Wednesday TLT Expirations'') (collectively, ``Wednesday ETP
Expirations'').\7\ In the event Short Term Option Daily Expirations
expire on a Wednesday and that Wednesday is the same day that a
Quarterly Options Series expires, the Exchange would skip that week's
listing and instead list the following week; the two weeks would
therefore not be consecutive. Today, Wednesday expirations in SPY, QQQ,
and IWM similarly skip the weekly listing in the event the weekly
listing expires on the same day in the same class as a Quarterly Option
Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the relevant rule text in Policy .02 of Rule 404 also
indicates that the Exchange will not list such expirations on a
Wednesday that is a business day in which monthly options series
expire, practically speaking this would not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT Friday expirations would continue to
have a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates provided those
Friday expirations are not Fridays in which monthly options series or
Quarterly Options Series expire (``Friday Short Term Option Expiration
Dates'').
    Similar to Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Short Term Option Daily
Expirations within Policy .02 of Rule 404, the Exchange proposes that
it may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business
day series of options on USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT that expire at the
close of business on each of the next two Wednesdays that are business
days and are not business days in which Quarterly Options Series
expire.
    The interval between strike prices for the proposed Wednesday ETP
Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option
Series for Friday expirations applicable to the Short Term Option
Series Program.\8\ Specifically, the Wednesday ETP Expirations will
have a strike interval of $0.50 or greater for strike prices below
$100, $1 or greater for strike prices between $100 and $150, and $2.50
or greater for strike prices above $150.\9\ As is the case with other
equity options listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series Program,
the Wednesday ETP Expirations series will be P.M.--settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Policy .02(e) of Rule 404.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Policy .02 of Rule 404, with respect to the Short Term
Option Series Program, a Wednesday expiration series shall expire on
the first business day immediately prior to that Wednesday, e.g.,
Tuesday of that week if the Wednesday is not a business day.
    Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the
Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange is limited to opening
thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.\10\
The thirty (30) series restriction does not include series that are
open by other securities exchanges under their respective weekly rules;
the Exchange may list these additional series that are listed by other
options exchanges.\11\ With the proposed changes, this thirty (30)
series restriction would apply to Wednesday USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT
Short Term Option Daily Expirations as well. In addition, the Exchange
will be able to list series that are listed by other exchanges,
assuming that they file similar rules with the Commission to list
Wednesday ETP Expirations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Policy .02(c) of Rule 404.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposal, Wednesday ETP Expirations would be treated
similarly to existing Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations. With
respect to monthly option series, Short Term Option Daily Expirations
will be permitted to expire in the same week in which monthly option
series on the same class expire. Not listing Short Term Option Daily
Expirations for one week every month because there was a monthly on
that same class on the Friday of that week would create investor
confusion.
    Further, as with Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations, the
Exchange would not permit Wednesday ETP Expirations to expire on a
business day in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options
Series expire. Therefore, all Short Term Option Daily Expirations would
expire at the close of business on each of the next two Wednesdays that
are business days and are not business days in which monthly options
series or Quarterly Options Series expire. The Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to not permit two expirations on the same day in which
a monthly options series or a Quarterly Options Series would expire
because those options would be duplicative of each other.
    The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be
encountered with the introduction of Wednesday ETP Expirations. The
Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place
to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Wednesday ETP
Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term
Option

Series that expire on Wednesday for SPY, QQQ, and IWM and has not
experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. Today, the
Exchange has surveillance programs in place to support and properly
monitor trading in Short Term Option Series that expire Wednesday for
SPY, QQQ, and IWM.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in, securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to Wednesday expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the proposal
to permit Wednesday ETP Expirations, subject to the proposed limitation
of two expirations beyond the current week, would protect investors and
the public interest by providing the investing public and other market
participants more choice and flexibility to closely tailor their
investment and hedging decisions in these options and allow for a
reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection, thus allowing them
to better manage their risk exposure.
    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place to detect manipulative trading in the proposed option
expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current
Short Term Option Series for Wednesday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations.
The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary system capacity
to support the new expirations. Finally, the Exchange does not believe
that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction
of these option expirations. As discussed above, the Exchange believes
that its proposal is a modest expansion of weekly expiration dates for
GLD, SLV, USO, UNG, and TLT given that it will be limited to two
Wednesday expirations beyond the current week. Lastly, the Exchange
believes its proposal will not be a strain on liquidity providers
because of the multi-class nature of GLD, SLV, USO, UNG, and TLT and
the available hedges in highly correlated instruments, as described
above.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
as the proposal would overall add a small number of Wednesday ETP
Expirations by limiting the addition of two Wednesday expirations
beyond the current week. The addition of Wednesday ETP Expirations
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market by encouraging Market Makers to continue to deploy capital
more efficiently and improve market quality. The Exchange believes that
the proposal will allow market participants to expand hedging tools and
tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in USO, UNG,
GLD, SLV, and TLT as these funds are most likely to be utilized by
market participants to hedge the underlying asset classes.
    Similar to Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the
introduction of Wednesday ETP Expirations is consistent with the Act as
it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market
participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio
protection. The Exchange believes that Wednesday ETP Expirations will
allow market participants to purchase options on USO, UNG, GLD, SLV,
and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their
investment and hedging needs more effectively, thus allowing them to
better manage their risk exposure. Today, the Exchange lists Wednesday
SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Policy .02 of Rule 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been
successful to date and that Wednesday ETP Expirations should simply
expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements
stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout
the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series Program has
expanded the landscape of hedging. There are no material differences in
the treatment of Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations compared to
the proposed Wednesday ETP Expirations. Given the similarities between
Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations and the proposed Wednesday ETP
Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in
Policy .02 of Rule 404 that currently apply to Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and
IWM expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes that
allowing Wednesday ETP Expirations and monthly ETP expirations in the
same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by
providing Wednesday ETP Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to filings submitted by Nasdaq ISE
\15\ and the Cboe Exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 4.
    \16\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposal will expand the Short Term Options Expirations
to allow Wednesday ETP Expirations to be listed on the Exchange, the
Exchange believes that this limited expansion for Wednesday expirations
for options on USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT will not impose an undue
burden on competition; rather, it will meet customer demand. The
Exchange believes that market participants will continue to be able to
expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more
effectively in USO, UNG, GLD, SLV, and TLT given multi-class nature of
these products and the available hedges in highly correlated
instruments, as described above. Similar to Wednesday SPY, QQQ, and IWM
expirations, the introduction of Wednesday ETP Expirations does not
impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes that it
will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market
participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio
protection. The Exchange believes that Wednesday ETP Expirations will
allow market participants to purchase options on USO, UNG, GLD, SLV,
and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their
investment and hedging needs more effectively.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden
on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options
exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Wednesday ETP
Expirations. Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will
impose any burden on intra-market competition, as all market

participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \19\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \21\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\22\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. According to
the Exchange, the proposed rule change is a competitive response to a
filing submitted by Nasdaq ISE that was recently approved by the
Commission.\23\ The Exchange has stated that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay would ensure fair competition among the exchanges by
allowing the Exchange to permit the listing of two Wednesday
expirations for options on ETPs. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ See supra note 4.
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MIAX-2023-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MIAX-2023-49. 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 website (https://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 website 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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MIAX-2023-49 and should be
submitted on or before January 9, 2024.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27782 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62579-62585]
[DOCID:fr06no07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0271; FRL-8491-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Approval of 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans
for the Parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans
for the parishes of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary. On August 23,
2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP revisions
containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and Grant
Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. These plans ensure the continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) through the year 2014. These maintenance plans meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's
guidance. EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 of the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on January 7, 2008 without further
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by December 6,
2007. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0271, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.
 Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select

``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0271. 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 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 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 Air Planning Section

(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Public Records
Center, Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. Background
II. Analysis of the State's Submittals
III. The State of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid
Vapor Pressure Standard in Grant Parish
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under section 107 of the 1977 CAA, Louisiana's Beauregard, Grant,
and St. Mary Parishes were designated as nonattainment areas because
they did not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for 1-hour ozone (40 CFR 81.319). As required by section 110 of the
CAA, the state of Louisiana submitted a SIP to EPA on December 10,
1979. This SIP was approved by EPA on October 29, 1981 (46 FR 53412).
Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary
Parish nonattainment areas continued to be designated nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by operation of law since Louisiana had not yet
collected the required three years of data necessary to petition for
redesignation to attainment.
    On December 12, 1994, Louisiana submitted a request to redesignate
Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard. At the same time, the State submitted the required
ozone monitoring data and maintenance plan for each parish (each area
includes only the one Parish) to ensure the areas would remain in
attainment for 1-hour ozone for a period of 10 years. The maintenance
plans submitted by Louisiana followed EPA guidance for limited
maintenance areas, which provides for 1-hour ozone areas that have
design values less than 85% of the applicable standard. In this case,
the applicable standard was the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per
million (ppm). At the time of the redesignation request, the design
values for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were 0.106, 0.071,
and 0.092 ppm, respectively. Since each of these values was at or below
the 85% threshold of 0.106 ppm, EPA approved Louisiana's requests to
redesignate Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to attainment for
the 1-hour ozone standard and approved the Parishes' maintenance plans,
on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43020), with an effective date of October 17,
1995.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the new
8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final phase 1 rule
for implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951). Beauregard,
Grant, and St. Mary Parishes were designated as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, effective June 15, 2004. The
three attainment areas consequently are required to submit a 10-year
maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the Phase I
rule. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance providing information
regarding how a state might fulfill the maintenance plan obligation
established by the Act and the Phase I rule (Memorandum from Lydia N.
Wegman to Air Division Directors, Maintenance Plan Guidance Document
for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air
Act, May 20, 2005). This SIP revision satisfies the section 110(a)(1)
CAA requirements for a plan that provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parish 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/
attainment areas.
    On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that vacated EPA's Phase
1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (South Coast Air
Quality Management District. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Petitions for rehearing were filed with the Court, and on June 8, 2007,
the Court modified the scope of the vacatur of the Phase I rule. The
Court vacated those portions of the Rule that provide for regulation of
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2
and that allow backsliding with respect to new source review,
penalties, milestones, contingency plans, and motor vehicle emission
budgets. Consequently, the Court's modified ruling does not alter any
requirements under the Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule for
maintenance plans.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittals

    On August 23, 2006, the State of Louisiana submitted separate SIP
revisions containing 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard and
Grant Parishes, and on October 10, 2006, Louisiana submitted an 8-hour

ozone maintenance plan for St. Mary Parish. (The August 23, 2006
submittal for Grant Parish superseded a previous one dated March 2006,
and included substantive changes to the contingency plan section. The
August 23, 2006 submittal for Grant Parish was preceded by a proposal
in June 2006, and a public hearing July 25, 2006.) These August and
October revisions provide 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the three
parishes named above, as required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and
the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule (see 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4)). The purpose of these plans is to ensure continued
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in Beauregard,
Grant, and St. Mary Parishes.
    In this action, EPA is approving the State's 8-hour ozone
maintenance plans for the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary
Parishes because EPA finds that the LDEQ submittal meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, EPA's rule, and is
consistent with EPA's guidance. As required, these plans provide for
continued attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
area for 10 years from the effective date of the area's designation as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and include
components illustrating how each Parish will continue in attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and contingency measures. Each of the section
110(a) (1) plan components is discussed below.
    (a) Attainment Inventory. The LDEQ developed comprehensive
inventories of VOC and NOX emissions from area, stationary,
and mobile sources using 2002 as the base year to demonstrate
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Beauregard, Grant, and St.
Mary Parishes. The year 2002 is an appropriate year for the LDEQ to
base attainment level emissions because States may select any one of
the three years on which the 8-hour attainment designation was based
(2001, 2002, and 2003). The State's submittals contain the detailed
inventory data and summaries by source category. The 2002 base year
inventory is a good choice. Using the 2002 inventory as a base year
reflects one of the years used for calculating the air quality design
values on which the 8-hour ozone designation decisions were based. It
also is one of the years in the 2002-2004 period used to establish
baseline visibility levels for the regional haze program.
    A practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year emission
inventory is that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) require States to
submit emissions inventories for all criteria pollutants and their
precursors every three years, on a schedule that includes the emissions
year 2002. The due date for the 2002 emissions inventory is established
in the rule as June 2004. In accordance with these requirements, the
State of Louisiana compiles a statewide EI for point sources on an
annual basis. For stationary point sources, for Beauregard, Grant, and
St. Mary Parishes, the LDEQ provided estimates for each commercial or
industrial operation that emits 100 tons or more per year of VOC or
NOX in Appendix A of each maintenance plan. Stationary non-
point source data was provided by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.,
through the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) using
the methodology in ``Consolidation of Emissions Inventories'', section
C, page 26. On-road mobile emissions of VOC and NOX were
estimated using EPA's MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions factor computer
model. Non-road mobile emissions data were derived from the ``Emission
Inventory Development For Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources
for the Central States'' produced by Sonoma Technology, Inc. for CENRAP
in October 2004 using EPA's NONROAD 2004 non-road mobile emissions
computer model. EPA finds that the LDEQ prepared the 2002 base year
emissions inventories for the three Parishes consistent with EPA's
long-established guidance memoranda.
    In projecting data for the attainment year 2014 inventory, LDEQ
used several methods to project data from the base year 2002 to the
years 2008, 2011, and 2014. These projected inventories were developed
using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. Point source and
non-point source projections were derived from the Emissions Growth
Analysis System version 4.0 (EGAS 4.0). Non-road mobile projections
were derived from EGAS 4.0, as well as from the National Mobile
Inventory Model.
    The following tables provide VOC and NOX emissions data
for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected VOC
and NOX emission inventory data for the years 2008, 2011,
and 2014. Please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
additional emissions inventory data including projections by source
category for each parish.

                Beauregard Parish VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory Baseline (2002) and Projections
                                             (2008, 2011, and 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002 tons    2008 tons    2011 tons    2014 tons
                          Emissions                             per day      per day      per day      per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC...................................................        13.91        13.96        13.96        14.02
Total NOX...................................................        20.88        20.79        20.78        20.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the table above, total VOC and total NOX
emissions for Beauregard Parish are projected to remain nearly the same
over the 10-year period of the maintenance plan.

       Grant Parish VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory Baseline (2002) and Projections (2008, 2011, and 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002 tons    2008 tons    2011 tons    2014 tons
                          Emissions                             per day      per day      per day      per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC...................................................         8.99         8.23         7.57         7.09
Total NOX...................................................         5.73         5.13         4.82         4.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the table above, total VOC and total NOX
emissions for Grant Parish are projected to decrease somewhat over the
10-year period of the maintenance plan.

                 St. Mary Parish VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory Baseline (2002) and Projections
                                             (2008, 2011, and 2014)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002 tons    2008 tons    2011 tons    2014 tons
                          Emissions                             per day      per day      per day      per day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC...................................................        18.74        16.29        15.50        15.01
Total NOX...................................................        37.10        37.79        38.43        39.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emission projections for future years in St. Mary Parish indicate a
downward trend in VOC emissions through 2014. NOX emission
projections through 2014 reflect an increase of 2.05 tons per day by
the year 2014, or approximately 5%, from 37.10 to 39.15 tpd. This small
projected increase which occurs over a 12-year period is a result of
calculations for the point and non-point source emissions categories.
Emissions from non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources are projected
to decrease. In contrast, VOC emissions are projected to decrease by
3.73 tons per day, or approximately 20%, from 18.74 to 15.01 tpd. The
projected 20% reduction in VOC emissions is expected to sufficiently
offset the projected 5% increase in NOX emissions, enabling
the area to continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard.
    Please see the TSD for more information on EPA's analysis and
review of the State's methodologies, modeling data and performance,
etc. for developing the base and attainment year inventories. As shown
in the tables above, the State has demonstrated that the future year 8-
hour ozone emissions will be less than the 2002 base attainment year's
emissions. The attainment inventories submitted by the LDEQ for these
areas are consistent with the criteria as discussed in the EPA
Maintenance Plan Guidance memo dated May 20, 2005. EPA finds that the
future emissions levels in 2008, 2011 and 2014 are expected to be
similar to or less than the emissions levels in 2002.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration. The primary purpose of a maintenance
plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in
compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for the 10 year period
following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/
attainment. The end projection year is 10 years from the effective date
of the attainment designation, which for Beauregard, Grant, and St.
Mary Parishes was June 15, 2004. Therefore, these plans must
demonstrate attainment through 2014. As discussed in section (a)
Attainment Inventory above, Louisiana has identified the level of
ozone-forming emissions in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes
that were consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2002.
Louisiana has projected VOC and NOX emissions for the years
2008, 2011, and 2014 in Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes and
EPA finds that the future emissions levels in those years are expected
to be similar or below the emissions levels in 2002. Please see the TSD
for more information on EPA's review and evaluation of the State's
2008, 2011, and 2014 projected emissions inventories.
    Louisiana relies on several air quality measures that will provide
for additional 8-hour ozone emissions reductions in Beauregard, Grant,
and St. Mary Parishes. These measures include the following, among
others: (1) Implementation of EPA's National Rule for VOC Emission
Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, Consumer Products, and
Architectural Coatings, (2) enacting of specific requirements from
EPA's Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards, as well as EPA's gasoline and highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements, (3) EPA's required control of
emissions from non-road diesel engines and fuels, and (4)
implementation of the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR
25162). The purpose of these control measures is to reduce levels of 8-
hour ozone, including the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary
Parishes.
    As an additional demonstration of maintenance, Louisiana references
the EPA modeling conducted for CAIR in the maintenance plan submittals.
Louisiana is a state that must implement CAIR, and the EPA CAIR
modeling indicates that all Louisiana parishes will be in attainment
with the 8-hour ozone standard by 2010, with continued attainment
projected through 2015. This analysis is consistent with the
projections discussed above in (a) Attainment Inventory.
    (c) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring. In May 2003, after a technical
and statistical analysis, the Regional Office agreed with the State of
Louisiana that the Ragley monitoring site in Beauregard Parish and the
Bentley monitoring site in Grant Parish could be discontinued upon
submittal of a revised maintenance plan, which turned out to be
November 28, 2005 for Grant Parish and May 19, 2006 for Beauregard
Parish. The Bentley site in Grant Parish, however, was destroyed by
fire on August 13, 2005, before the end of the 2005 ozone season. Since
there was not adequate time to establish a new monitor for the
remainder of the 2005 ozone season, EPA calculated its 2005 design
value with the available information as 73 ppb. (The ozone season in
the State of Louisiana is from January to December for the Parishes
discussed in this notice.) In the same May 2003 letter, after the
completion of the technical and statistical analysis, the Regional
Office agreed with the State that the Morgan City monitoring site in
St. Mary Parish could be discontinued at the end of the 2003 ozone
season. Nevertheless, the State of Louisiana has committed in its
maintenance plans for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes to
provide operation of an appropriate ozone monitoring network and to
work with EPA in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 with regard to the
continued adequacy of such a network, if EPA determines monitoring is
needed.
    The Ragley monitoring site in Beauregard Parish has monitored
attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard since 1998 through 2005. The
8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million based on the three-year
average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration measured at each monitor within an area. The standard is
considered to be attained at 84 parts per billion (ppb). The three most
recent 8-hour ozone design values for the Ragley site in Beauregard
Parish are 73 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 75 ppb for 2005. The
Bentley monitoring site in Grant Parish has monitored attainment with

the 8-hour ozone standard since 1998 through 2004. The most recent 8-
hour ozone design values for the Bentley site in Grant Parish are 78
ppb for 2002, 74 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 73 ppb for 2005.
The design value for 2005 is calculated to be 73 ppb, based upon the 8
months and 12 days of available data.
    In St. Mary Parish, the Morgan City monitoring site has monitored
attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard since 2001 through 2005. The
State did not discontinue the monitor after the end of the 2003 ozone
season as allowed but continued to operate it through the 2005 ozone
season. The three most recent 8-hour ozone design values for St. Mary
Parish are 74 ppb for 2003, 73 ppb for 2004, and 76 ppb for 2005.
    (d) Contingency Plan. The section 110(a) (1) maintenance plans
include contingency provisions to correct promptly any violation of the
NAAQS that occurs. The contingency indicator for the Beauregard, Grant,
and St. Mary Parish maintenance plans is based on updates to the
emission inventories. The triggering mechanism for activation of
contingency measures is a ten percent or greater increase in emissions
of either VOC or NOX based on the 2002 emissions inventory.
In these maintenance plans, if contingency measures are triggered, LDEQ
is committing to implement the measures as expeditiously as
practicable, but no longer than 24 months following the trigger.
    The following contingency measures are identified for
implementation: (1) Lowering VOC RACT applicability thresholds for
Stage 1 gasoline controls, (2) NOX controls on major sources
(100 tpy and greater), (3) Emission offsets for permits (1.10 ratio for
VOC and NOX), and (4) Other measures deemed appropriate at
the time as a result of advances in control technologies. These
contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy EPA's
long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a) (1) of
Continued Attainment. Continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the areas of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes will depend, in
part, on the air quality measures discussed previously (see II. b)
above). In addition, Louisiana commits to verify the 8-hour ozone
status in each maintenance plan through annual and periodic evaluations
of the emissions inventories. In the annual evaluations, Louisiana will
review VOC and NOX emission data from stationary point
sources. During the periodic evaluations (every three years), Louisiana
will update the emissions inventory for all emissions source
categories, and compare the updated emissions inventory data to the
projected 2008, 2011 and 2014 attainment emissions inventories to
verify continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

III. The State of Louisiana's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure Standard in Grant Parish

    The State of Louisiana has submitted a request to EPA to relax the
federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi in
Grant Parish during the ozone control season (June 1 to September 15).
The Grant Parish section 110(a) (1) maintenance plan provides a modeled
analysis of emissions from on-road mobile sources, including a
comparison of VOC emissions using both the 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP
gasoline, for the three projection years: 2008, 2011, and 2014. The
following Table provides the data resulting from the State's analysis
comparing projected VOC emissions in Grant Parish for an RVP of 7.8 psi
and 9.0 psi.

          Grant Parish: RVP Comparison Effect on VOC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     7.8 psi    9.0 psi
                       Year                          RVP  VOC   RVP  VOC
                                                      (tpd)      (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..............................................       1.27        N/A
2008..............................................       0.80       0.90
2011..............................................       0.63       0.70
2014..............................................       0.52       0.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Table above shows that Grant Parish is projected to continue to
attain the 8-hour ozone standard with either a 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP
gasoline. The overall effect on VOC emissions from the difference
between 7.8 and 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is 0.1 tpd or less for each of the
three projection years. Further, each of the projected VOC emission
inventories using 9.0 psi RVP gasoline is less than the baseline VOC
emission inventory for the 2002 attainment year. Based upon this data,
the Grant Parish 8-hour maintenance plan demonstrates that the use of
either 7.8 or 9.0 psi RVP gasoline in the parish will allow the area to
continue to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA has promulgated regulations establishing the volatility
standards. In a separate rulemaking, EPA will address the State's
request.

IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, EPA is approving the 8-hour
ozone maintenance plans for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes,
which were submitted by LDEQ on August 23, 2006, August 23, 2006, and
October 10, 2006, respectively, which ensure continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year 2014. We have evaluated the
State's submittals and have determined that they meet the applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and are
consistent with EPA policy.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on January 7, 2008
without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 6,
2007. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 also 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
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
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 approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, 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 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 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). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 7, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 26, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. In Sec.  52.970, the table in paragraph (e) entitled, ``EPA APPROVED
LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES'', is
amended by adding three new entries to the end of the table as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                  Epa-Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic  submittal date/   EPA approval date      Explanation
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Section 110            Beauregard Parish, LA         8/23/06  11/06/07 [Insert FR
 Maintenance Plan.                                                          page number where
                                                                            document begins].
8-Hour Ozone Section 110            Grant Parish, LA.....         8/23/06  11/06/07 [Insert FR
 Maintenance Plan.                                                          page number where
                                                                            document begins].
8-Hour Ozone Section 110            St. Mary Parish, LA..         9/27/06  11/06/07 [Insert FR
 Maintenance Plan.                                                          page number where
                                                                            document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.975, entitled, ``Redesignations and maintenance plans;
ozone'', is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) as follows:

Sec.  52.975  Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone.

* * * * *
    (h) Approval. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the areas of
Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes on August 23, 2006, August 23,
2006, and October 10, 2006, respectively. The three areas are
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA
determined these requests for Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary Parishes
were complete on October 9, 2006, October 9, 2006, and November 30,
2006, respectively. The maintenance plans meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and are consistent with EPA's
maintenance plan guidance document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA
therefore approved the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the areas

of Beauregard, Grant, and St. Mary parishes on November 6, 2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-21687 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P