[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38347-38350]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15633]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67229; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-058]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and
Trading of Alpha Index-Linked Securities

June 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 11, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to adopt Nasdaq Rule 5712, Alpha Index-Linked
Securities, providing for the listing, trading and delisting of
securities linked to the performance of certain specified NASDAQ OMX
Alpha Indexes as set forth below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, 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. 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide for the
listing and trading on NASDAQ of Equity Index-Linked Securities (as
defined in Exchange Rule 5710) linked, on an unleveraged basis, to the
following Alpha Indexes owned and maintained by NASDAQ OMX Group Inc.:
GOOG vs. SPY (GOOSY) and AAPL vs. SPY (AVSPY) (together, the
``Specified Alpha Indexes''). These Alpha Indexes are relative
performance based equity indexes maintained by The NASDAQ OMX Group.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has previously approved the listing and
trading of options on certain Alpha Indexes (``Alpha Index
Options'') on NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX''). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 63860 (February 7, 2011), 76 FR 7888 (February 11,
2011) (SR-Phlx-2010-176), approving options on the following Alpha
Indexes: AAPL/SPY, AMZN/SPY, CSCO/SPY, F/SPY, GE/SPY, GOOG/SPY, HPQ/
SPY, IBM/SPY, INTC/SPY, KO/SPY, MRK/SPY, MSFT/SPY, ORCL/SPY, PFE/
SPY, RIMM/SPY, T/SPY, TGT/SPY, VZ/SPY and WMT/SPY. The Commission
subsequently approved options on the following Alpha Indexes in
which the Target Component, as well as the Benchmark Component, is
an ETF share: DIA/SPY, EEM/SPY, EWJ/SPY, EWZ/SPY, FXI/SPY, GLD/SPY,
IWM/SPY, QQQ/SPY, SLV/SPY, TLT/SPY, XLE/SPY and XLF/SPY. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65149 (August 17, 2011), 76 FR
52729 (August 23, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Nasdaq Rule 5710 provides for the listing and trading of
Equity Index-Linked Securities. In particular, Nasdaq Rule
5710(k)(i)(A) provides for the listing and trading pursuant to
Commission Rule 19b-4(e) of Equity Index-Linked Securities with respect
to which the underlying indexes have at least 10 component securities
and either (1) have been reviewed and approved for the trading of
options or other derivatives by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the
Commission's approval order, including comprehensive surveillance
sharing agreements for non-U.S. stocks, continue to be satisfied, or
(2) meet specific index criteria set forth in Rule 5710(k)(i)(A)(2).
NASDAQ Alpha Indexes do not contain at least 10 component securities
and therefore do not meet these requirements, even if they have been
reviewed and approved for the trading of options by the Commission
under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, and therefore are ineligible for
listing and trading pursuant to Rule 5710(k)(i)(A).
    This proposed rule change would therefore add new Exchange Rule
5712 which provides that NASDAQ will consider for listing and trading
Equity Index-Linked Securities that are linked to the Specified Alpha
Indexes and that meet the criteria specified therein (the ``Alpha
Index-Linked Securities'').
Alpha Index Calculation
    The Alpha Indexes measure relative total returns of one stock or
one exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') share versus another ETF share (each
such combination of two components is referred to as an ``Alpha
Pair'').\4\ The first component identified in an Alpha Pair (the
``Target Component'') is measured against the second component
identified in the Alpha Pair (the ``Benchmark Component'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the Commission has previously approved 31
Alpha Indexes for options trading. The NASDAQ OMX Group currently
maintains and calculates three additional Alpha Indexes, for a total
of 34, and may develop additional Alpha Indexes in the future. At
this time, the Exchange proposes to list and trade only those Alpha
Index-Linked Securities that are linked to the Specified Alpha
Indexes identified herein. The Exchange may in the future request
Commission approval to list and trade Alpha Index-Linked Securities
based upon other Alpha Indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to calculate an Alpha Index, NASDAQ measures the total
return performance of the Target Component relative to the total return
performance of the Benchmark Component, based upon prices of
transactions on the primary listing exchange of the Benchmark Component
and the Target Component. The value of each Alpha Index was initially
set at 100.00.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The total return measures performance (rate of return) of
price appreciation plus dividends over any given evaluation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate any Alpha Index, NASDAQ first calculates a daily total
return for both the Target Component

and the Benchmark Component of the Alpha Pair. To calculate the daily
total return today of a Target Component or a Benchmark Component,
respectively, the previous trading day's closing market price for the
Target Component or Benchmark Component, respectively, would be
subtracted from today's closing market price for the Target Component
or Benchmark Component, respectively, to determine a price difference
(the ``Price Difference''). The Price Difference would be added to any
declared dividend, if today were an ``ex-dividend'' date, to yield the
Price Plus Dividend Difference for the Target Component or the
Benchmark Component, respectively.
    The Price Plus Dividend Difference for the Target Component or
Benchmark Component is then divided by the previous trading day's
closing market price for the Target Component or Benchmark Component,
and the result is rounded to four decimal places to yield the daily
total return.
    To calculate all Alpha Indexes, the daily total return for the
Target Component and for the Benchmark Component is then added to the
whole number one. This figure for the Target Component is then divided
by the comparable figure for the Benchmark Component, and then
multiplied by the previous trading day's closing Alpha Index value. The
resulting level depicts the Target Component's total return performance
for that day compared to the Benchmark Component's total return
performance for that day.
    The following example illustrates the Alpha Index calculation for
ABC stock as against SPY.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Daily total return values and Alpha Index values will be
updated based upon prices of each reported transaction in the
primary listing market. In the example below, today's closing prices
are used simply for purposes of illustration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Step 1.) For both ABC and SPY, the previous trading day's closing
market price is subtracted from today's closing market price with the
result added to any dividend declared today as the ``ex-dividend''
date. For example, today's closing price for ABC (214.01) minus the
previous day's closing price (210.73) equals 3.28. Today is not an ex-
dividend date for ABC; therefore, nothing is added to 3.28. Similarly,
today's closing price for SPY (113.33) minus the previous trading day's
closing price (111.44) equals 1.89. Today is not an ex-dividend date
for SPY; therefore, nothing is added to 1.89.
    (Step 2.) The step one result is divided by the previous trading
day's closing market price and the new result is rounded, using simple
rounding, to four decimal places to yield the daily total return. For
ABC, 3.28 would be divided by 210.73 to yield a daily total return of
0.0156. Similarly, for SPY, 1.89 would be divided by 111.44 and yield a
daily total return of 0.0170.
    (Step 3.) The step two results above are added to the whole number
one. For ABC, the daily total return of 0.0156 would be added to 1 for
a result of 1.0156. For SPY the daily total return of 0.0170 would be
added to 1 for a result of 1.0170.
    (Step 4.) In order to calculate the Alpha Index, the 1.0156 ABC
figure is divided by the 1.0170 SPY figure and then multiplied by the
previous trading day's closing Alpha Index value. Thus, assuming in the
example that the previous trading day's closing Alpha Index value was
100.00, today's closing Alpha Index value would be 99.86 (1.0156/1.0170
x 100.00 = 99.86). The 99.86 index level reflects that ABC's total
return performance today versus yesterday was -.14% relative to SPY.
    In the case of a corporate event which eliminates one of the
underlying components of an Alpha Pair, NASDAQ will cease calculation
of the Alpha Index for that Alpha Pair in which case NASDAQ will
commence delisting or removal proceedings pursuant to Rule 5712(c). In
the case of a corporate event such as a two-for-one stock split that
affects the price of one of the underlying components, NASDAQ will make
an appropriate one-time adjustment to the price of the underlying
component used in the calculation to ensure that the Alpha Index
continues to reflect the daily total return of the component. For
example, on the effective date of the two-for-one stock split, NASDAQ
will multiply the resulting stock price by two in order to reconstitute
the economic value of the stock on the day before the effective date.
On the day following the effective date, the Alpha Index formula will
revert to the base formula to compare daily returns.
    To be eligible for listing, values of all Alpha Indexes underlying
Alpha Index-Linked Securities must be disseminated at least once every
second over the NASDAQ OMX Global Index Data Service (``GIDS'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=globalindexDS
for a description of the NASDAQ OMX Global Index Data Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements With Respect to the Security
    Alpha Index-Linked Securities listed and traded under proposed Rule
5712 would be required to meet the requirements of Exchange Rule
5710(a)-(j). Effectively, the only provision of Rule 5710 which would
not apply to Alpha Index-Linked Securities is subsection (k), which
specifies the index criteria for eligibility for listing and trading
under Commission Rule 19b-4(e) as well as certain continued listing and
delisting criteria. Pursuant to Rule 5712(a), all other provisions of
Rule 5710 applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities eligible for
listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) shall apply to Alpha
Index-Linked Securities.
Alpha Index Components
    Proposed Nasdaq Rule 5712 would permit the listing and trading of
Alpha Index-Linked Securities only on the Specified Alpha Indexes with
respect to which the Target Component and Benchmark Component meet
certain criteria. Specifically, at the initial listing of the Alpha
Index-Linked Security, options on the Target Component and the
Benchmark Component of the Alpha Index must also be listed and traded
on the NASDAQ Options Market and must meet the requirements of Chapter
IV, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities, of the NASDAQ
Options Market rules. Additionally, both the Target Component's and the
Benchmark Component's trading volume (in all markets in which the
Target Component or the Benchmark Component is traded) must have
averaged at least 2,250,000 shares per day in the preceding twelve
months.\8\ No Alpha Index-Linked Security will be listed unless and
until options overlying each of the Alpha Index component securities
have been listed and traded on a national securities exchange with an
average daily options trading volume during the three previous months
of at least 10,000 contracts.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 2,250,000 shares per day volume requirement is the same
volume requirement applicable to Target Components and Benchmark
Components of Alpha Index Options listed on PHLX.
    \9\ See Rule 5712(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the initial listing of the Alpha Index-Linked Security,
options on both the Target Component and the Benchmark Component of the
Alpha Index must continue to meet the continued listing standards set
forth by Chapter IV, Section 4, Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying
Securities, of the NASDAQ Options Market rules. Additionally, both the
Target Component's and the Benchmark Component's trading volume (in all
markets in which the Target Component or Benchmark Component is traded)
must have averaged at least 2,000,000 shares per day in the preceding
twelve months.\10\ Following the listing of an

Alpha Index-Linked Security, options on each of the component
securities of the Alpha Index must continue to meet the options average
daily volume standard set forth in Rule 5712(a)(ii).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2,000,000 shares per day continued listing volume
requirement is the same continued listing volume requirement
applicable to Target Components and Benchmark Components of Alpha
Index Options listed on PHLX.
    \11\ See Rule 5712(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delisting of Alpha Index-Linked Securities
    Rule 5712(c) provides for delisting of Alpha Index-Linked
Securities. Delisting or removal proceedings will be commenced (unless
the Commission has approved the continued trading) with respect to any
Alpha Index-Linked Security that was listed pursuant to Rule 5712 if
any of the standards set forth in Rule 5712(b) with respect to the
underlying Alpha Index are not continuously maintained. Additionally,
NASDAQ will commence delisting or removal proceedings (unless the
Commission has approved the continued trading of the subject Alpha
Index-Linked Security) under any of the following circumstances: (i) If
the aggregate market value or principal amount of the Alpha Index-
Linked Securities publicly held is less than $400,000; (ii) if the
value of the underlying Alpha Index is no longer calculated or widely
disseminated on at least a one second basis, provided, however, that if
the official index value does not change during some or all of the
period when trading is occurring on NASDAQ then the last calculated
official index value must remain available throughout NASDAQ trading
hours; or (iii) if such other event shall occur or condition exists
which in the opinion of NASDAQ makes further dealings on NASDAQ
inadvisable. These provisions proposed with respect to delisting track,
to the extent applicable, the Rule 5710(k)(i)(B) delisting provisions
applicable to Equity Index-Linked Securities listed pursuant to
Commission Rule 19b-4(e). Section (c)(iv) of Rule 5712 would provide
for the commencement of delisting or removal proceedings if an
underlying Alpha Index fails to satisfy the maintenance standards or
conditions for such index as set forth by the Commission in its order
under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act approving the index for the trading
of options or other derivatives.
Trading Rules and Procedures
    Trading in Alpha Index-Linked Securities will be governed by the
same trading rules and procedures that apply to other Equity Index-
Linked Securities listed pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5710. Moreover,
pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5710(i), FINRA will implement on behalf of
NASDAQ written surveillance procedures for Alpha Index-Linked
Securities. Surveillance will be in place for the launch of Alpha
Index-Linked Securities. Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5710(j), Alpha Index-
Linked Securities will be treated as equity instruments and for
purposes of fee determination shall be deemed and treated as Other
Securities. Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5710(h), if the value of an Alpha
Index is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt
trading during the day on which such interruption occurs and will halt
trading no later than the beginning of trading following the trading
day when the interruption commenced if such interruption persists at
this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change would
expand the investment choices available to market participants.
NASDAQ's listing requirements as proposed herein are generally the same
as those previously approved for listing Equity Index-Linked Securities
on NASDAQ pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), supplemented by listing standards
tailored specifically to Equity Index-Linked Securities based upon
Alpha Indexes, and, consequently, the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, as the proposed Alpha Index-Linked
Securities are subject to existing, previously-approved NASDAQ rules
governing trading in Equity Index-Linked Securities. The proposal also
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in that Nasdaq Rule 2310,
which imposes suitability obligations on NASDAQ members with respect to
recommending transactions to customers, will apply to Alpha Index-
Linked Securities. Finally, NASDAQ represents that FINRA, on behalf of
NASDAQ, will have in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to
properly monitor trading in the Alpha Index-Linked Securities and to
deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal
securities laws. The Exchange may obtain information via the
Intermarket Surveillance Group, ``ISG'', from other exchanges that are
members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Target Component and
the Benchmark Component, as well as options on the Target Component and
on the Benchmark Component, are traded on exchanges which are ISG
members.
    The proposal is also designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade by way of initial and continued listing standards
which, if not maintained, will result in the discontinuation of trading
in the affected products. These requirements, together with the
applicable NASDAQ equity trading rules (which apply to the proposed
Alpha Index-Linked Securities), ensure that no investor would have an
unfair advantage over another respecting the trading of the products.
On the contrary, all investors will have the same access to, and use
of, information concerning the products and trading in the products,
all to the benefit of public customers and the marketplace as a whole.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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.

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-NASDAQ-2012-058 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-NASDAQ-2012-058.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2012-058 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15633 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46722-46724]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17758]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92666; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Expiration Timeframe of Long-Term Index Options Series

August 13, 2021.
    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 August 9, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC
(``NOM'') Rules at Options 2, Section 5, Market Maker Quotations and
Options 4A, Section 12, Terms of Index Option Contracts.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, 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 NOM Rules at Options 2, Section 5,
Market Maker Quotations and Options 4A, Section 12, Terms of Index
Option Contracts. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the
expiration timeframe of Long-Term Options Series or ``LEAPs.''
    Options 2, Section 5(d)(2)(A) currently provides, ``Bid/ask
differentials shall not apply to any options series until the time to
expiration is less than nine (9) months for index options.'' Similarly,
Options 4A, Section 12(b) currently states,

    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(3), above,
NOM may list long-term index options series that expire from nine
(9) to sixty (60) months from the date of issuance.
    (A) Index long term options series may be based on either the
full or reduced value of the underlying index. There may be up to
ten (10) expiration months, none further out than sixty (60) months.
Strike price interval and continuity Rules shall not apply to such
options series until the time to expiration is less than nine (9)
months. Bid/ask differentials for long-term options contracts are
specified within Options 2, Section 5(d)(2)(A).

The Exchange proposes to amend the current text of Options 2, Section
5(d)(2)(A) and Options 4A, Section 12(b) to amend the time to
expiration term of LEAPs on index options from nine to sixty months to
twelve to sixty months. Likewise, the Exchange proposes to amend the
time to expiration for strike price interval, continuity rules and bid/
ask differentials for LEAPS on index options from less than nine to
less than twelve months.
    Today, other options markets have terms similar to those proposed
herein.\3\ The proposal would align NOM's rules with other options
markets with respect

to the opening month for LEAPs on index options and the time to
expiration for strike price interval, continuity rules and bid/ask
differentials for LEAPS on index options by changing nine to twelve
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Options Exchange, Inc. Rule 4.13(b). See also
Nasdaq Phlx LLC and Nasdaq ISE, LLC Options 4A, Section 12(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Options 2, Section 5 concerning
a Market Maker's obligation to make two-sided markets in any option
series with an expiration of nine months or greater. Today, Market
Makers are not required to make two-sided markets in Quarterly Option
Series, any Adjusted Option Series, and any option series with an
expiration of nine months or greater in equities, ETFs or indexes. With
this proposal, Market Makers are not required to make two-sided markets
in Quarterly Option Series, any Adjusted Option Series, and any option
series with an expiration of nine months or greater in equities, and
ETFs. With respect to indexes, Market Makers would not be required to
make two-sided markets in Quarterly Option Series, any Adjusted Option
Series, and any option series with an expiration of twelve months or
greater. The Exchange proposes to add rule text within Options 2,
Section 5 to make clear a Market Maker's obligation, respectively, to
make two-sided markets with respect to LEAPs. Today, Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``ISE''), Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'') and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'')
have similar rules which describe the way LEAPs on index options should
be quoted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 2, Section 5(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment on or before
September 30, 2021. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert
announcing the date the amendment will be operative.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the
public interest by amending its rules, in part, to align NOM's rules
with other options markets with respect to the opening month of
acceptable months for LEAPs on index options and the time to expiration
for strike price interval, continuity rules and bid/ask differentials
for LEAPS on index options. Today, other options markets have terms
similar to those proposed herein.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amending Options 2, Section 5(d)(2)(A) and Options 4A, Section
12(b) would harmonize NOM's rules with respect to LEAPs on index
options to permit NOM to list these options in the same manner as other
options markets that have similar rules.\8\ The Exchange notes that
this rule change will allow NOM to list more non-LEAP expirations as
the front-months for LEAP expirations would begin with month twelve
instead of month nine. The Exchange believes that this proposal would
allow it to list more months where there is greater customer demand as
this proposal would amend the opening month for LEAPs on index options
from nine to twelve months. Harmonizing NOM's rules with respect to
LEAPs on index options will allow NOM to list these options in the same
manner as other options markets that have similar rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amending Options 2, Section 5 to specifically note that the opening
month for LEAPs on index options would be twelve months by adding a
separate sentence to address LEAPs for index options is consistent with
the Act. The proposal would align the Exchange with the way other
options markets require market makers to quote LEAPs on index
options.\10\ NOM Market Makers would be required to provide two-sided
quotations in additional months with this proposal as the opening month
for LEAPs on index options is changing from nine to twelve months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 2, Section 5(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe the proposal to amend Options 2, Section 5(d)(2)(A) and
Options 4A, Section 12(b) will impose any burden on intra-market
competition as all Participants will be treated in the same manner with
respect to time to expiration for strike price interval, continuity
rules and bid/ask differentials for LEAPs on index options.
Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose
any burden on inter-market competition as market participants are
welcome to become NOM Participants if they determine that this proposed
rule change has made NOM more attractive or favorable. Finally, all
options exchanges are free to compete by listing and trading index
options with similar expirations.
    Amending Options 2, Section 5 to specifically note that the opening
month for LEAPs on index options would be twelve months by adding a
separate sentence to address LEAPs on index options does not impose an
undue burden on competition, rather the proposal aligns the Exchange's
rule with rules of other options markets with respect to quoting
LEAPs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 2, Section 5(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ 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. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to align its rules with
other options exchanges with respect to the opening month for LEAPs on
index options and implement its proposed rule change on or before
September 30, 2021. 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 operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-062 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-NASDAQ-2021-062. 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 (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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-062, and should be submitted
on or before September 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17758 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 9504]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER18-459-000, ER18-460-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Ohio Valley Electric Corporation;
Notice Establishing Answer Period to Motion To Defer Effective Date

    On February 26, 2018, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Ohio Valley
Electric Corporation (collectively, the Parties) filed a motion to
defer the present March 1, 2018 effective date for the modifications to
the Revised Tariff Sheets (Motion), accepted by the Commission on
February 13, 2018, in this proceeding.\1\ Also included in the filing
was a request to shorten the answer period for the Motion to one day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Ohio Valley Electric Corp.,
162 FERC ] 61,098 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this notice, the Parties' request to shorten the date for filing
answers to the Motion to one day is denied. Answers to the Motion shall
be filed on or before March 5, 2018.

    Dated: February 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04457 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Site Description Report

Callaway Power Plant

	Highway CC

	Fulton, MO 65251

March 4, 2009

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  As part of its site
visit to the Labadie Power Plant, EPA also collected information on
Ameren’s Callaway Power Plant.

Facility Description

Callaway is located about 10 miles southeast of the town of Fulton in
central Missouri.  The facility operates under NPDES permit MO0098001;
the permit was reissued on February 13, 2009 and will expire on February
12, 2014.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Callaway is a 1300 MW nuclear generating station with one reactor.  It
began operations in 1984 on a 7354 acre site and provides approximately
18% of Ameren’s baseload generating capacity.  The capacity
utilization rate (CUR) is approximately 88%.

The original site plans called for a second reactor; Ameren may consider
adding new generating units in the future.

Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

Callaway’s CWIS is located on the shoreline of the Missouri River,
approximately 5 miles south of the facility.  It is comprised of 3
intake bays, each with one pump and one coarse mesh (1/8”) traveling
screen.  Under normal operations, only 2 of the pumps operate at a time.
 The design through-screen velocity is 0.6 feet per second (fps).  The
screens automatically rotate every 8 hours or when a pre-determined head
differential is reached, the screens are washed with a high pressure
spray, and the debris-filled water is returned to the river via a
trough.

The CWIS also has a “fish gate” along the sides of the traveling
screens; this device allows fish trapped behind the trash rack another
opportunity to escape.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

In 1985, the facility conducted impingement studies associated with its
closed-cycle cooling system.  Approximately 96% of the collected fish
were shad and drum and resulted in an annual estimate of 2000 impinged
fish.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

The facility uses a concrete hyperbolic cooling tower as part of its
closed-cycle recirculating cooling system (CCRS).  The circulating flow
for the system is 818 million gallons per day (mgd).  Makeup water is
withdrawn via the CWIS, but the facility can operate up to 12 hours
without any water withdrawals.  The design intake flow (DIF) for
Callaway’s CWIS is 60 mgd and the average actual intake flow (AIF) is
24.5 mgd.  Intake water is treated before being routed to the cooling
tower.  Approximately 4.8 mgd is blown down each day.

Debris Handling

Callaway does not have significant problems with debris, but has
specific procedures for debris, icing, and low water levels.  During
high debris and icing periods, it rotates the traveling screens
continuously.  It operates on two pumps during icing periods and one
pump during low river level periods.  Also see Section 14.0.

Repowering/Future Uses

Ameren is considering adding additional units at Callaway.

Cooling Ponds

There are no cooling ponds onsite.

Ownership

Callaway is owned by Ameren, an investor-owned company.

316(a)

EPA did not collect any information about thermal discharges at this
site; however, due to the use of CCRS, it is likely that there are no
issues with the thermal discharge from Callaway.

Ash Handling

Callaway does not use coal as a fuel and therefore has no ash ponds.

Air Emissions Controls

EPA did not collect any information about air controls at this site.

Additional Information

Facility representatives noted that the CWIS has a desilting spray in
the intake bays; this device is operated for 30 minutes every 12 hours
to clean out accumulated sediment.

Facility representatives stated that the facility was designed with a
CCRS largely due to the distance from the river.  With such a long
construction and permitting period for nuclear facilities, the designers
assumed that closed-cycle cooling was a more appropriate choice for this
location.

Attachment A		Ameren PowerPoint Presentation (March 4, 2009)

Attachment A—Ameren PowerPoint Presentation (March 4, 2009)

Please see the attached materials.

 Treatment consists of flocculation and clarification.  Once treated,
the water is stored in a clear well until needed.

 Additional units would also use closed cycle cooling as applicable, but
the source of cooling or makeup water has not been determined.  Note
that radial wells could be drilled at the facility; facility
representatives stated that the TSS levels in the river water are higher
than is preferred and that installing wells may be a simpler solution
for makeup water.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65475]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twelfth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twelfth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 17-21 from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. In addition, Sophie Bousquet may be contacted directly at
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 227. The agenda will
include the following:

November 17-21, 2014

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
    [cir] Working Group 2 MOPS Change Proposals
    [cir] SC-186 and potential MASPS Requirement Changes
    [cir] MOPS Draft Review
 Plenary Review/Discussion
    [cir] Status of TORs and MASPS Change 1
    [cir] Status of SC-214/SC-227 Tiger Team
    [cir] Status of SC-186/SC-227 Coordination, and SC-227 Schedule
    [cir] Planned Work Schedule (Note, Schedule Subject to Change)
    [cir] MOPS Change Proposal Review
    [cir] MOPS Human Factors Guidance/Requirements
 Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as Needed)
 Other Business

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 29, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-26269 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


R 19J Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich Governor of Illinois Springfield, Illinois Dear Governor Blagojevich:

Fine particle pollution represents one of the most significant barriers to clean air facing our nation today. These tiny particles   about 1/ 30th the diameter of a human hair   have been scientifically linked to serious human health problems. Their ability to be suspended in air for long periods of time makes them a public health threat far beyond the source of emissions. An important part of our nation's commitment to clean, healthy air deals with reducing levels of this fine particle ( PM2.5) pollution.

We have reviewed the March 5, 2004, letter from Renee Cipriano, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, submitting Illinois' recommendations on air quality designations for the PM2.5 standard. We appreciate the effort the State has made to develop these recommendations. Consistent with the Clean Air Act, this letter is to notify you that, based upon the information contained in your submission and other available information, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) intends to make modifications to Illinois' recommended designations and boundaries.

Your Environmental Director will receive a copy of this letter with a more detailed enclosure containing a description of areas where EPA intends to modify your state recommendations, and the basis for such modification. Should you have additional information that you wish to be considered by the EPA in this process, we request that you provide it to us by September 1.

You will hear from us again in November when EPA takes the final step in the PM2.5 designation process and determines those areas that are in attainment ( or unclassifiable) and those areas that are nonattainment. For areas in attainment, the challenge will be not only to maintain, but also to continue the progress you have made toward clean air. It is a commitment to no backsliding 2 in your State's clean air status for fine particles. EPA will also issue a proposed fine particle implementation rule prior to final designations, which will allow you to proceed with planning to achieve clean air.

The Bush Administration is addressing fine particle pollution with a comprehensive national clean air strategy. This strategy includes EPA's recent rule to reduce pollution from nonroad diesel engines, and the proposed rule to reduce pollution from power plants in the Eastern United States. These two rules are important components of EPA's efforts to help States and localities meet the more protective national fine particle and 8 hour ozone air quality standards. Together these rules will help all areas of the country achieve cleaner air.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to a continued dialogue with you as we work together to implement the PM2.5 standards.

Very truly yours,

Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator Enclosure 3 cc: Renee Cipriano, Director Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Lori Kaplan, Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management Steven Mahfood, Director Missouri Department of Natural Resources P. Scott Hassett, Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 4 standard bcc's: official file copy originator's file copy originating organization reading file other bcc's: Kay Hudson Rita Cestaric ORA reading file Naimah Karim Felicia Williams Shari Holloway R. Damberg, OAQPS ( electronic copy) L. Wallace, OAQPS ( electronic copy) Dave Kolaz, IEPA Review of Designations in Illinois For the Particulate Matter Air Quality Standard The following table identifies the individual areas and counties comprising those areas in Illinois that EPA intends to designate as nonattainment for the fine particulate matter (" PM2.5") air quality standard. Where EPA intends to include only part of a county in a nonattainment area, we have indicated the boundaries of the portion of the county that will be included. Following this table is a description of the data EPA examined and a discussion of each area and the basis for EPA's intended designations. EPA intends to designate as attainment/ unclassifiable all other Illinois counties or parts thereof not identified in the table below.

Area Illinois Counties in Metropolitan Area Illinois Recommended Nonattainment Counties EPA's Intended Nonattainment Counties Chicago Gary Kenosha, IL IN WI Cook Du Page Kane Lake Mc Henry Will Grundy Kendall De Kalb Kankakee Cook Du Page Kane Lake Mc Henry Will Grundy: Aux Sable Township Goose Lake Township Kendall: Oswego Township Cook Du Page Kane Lake Mc Henry Will Grundy: Aux Sable Township Goose Lake Township Kendall: Oswego Township Saint Louis, MO IL Madison Monroe St Clair Clinton Jersey Madison Monroe St Clair Madison Monroe St Clair Randolph 2 An Explanation of EPA's 9 Factor Analysis Factor 1. Emissions in areas potentially included versus excluded from the nonattainment area: The analysis for factor 1 looks at emissions of carbonaceous particles ( carbon), inorganic particles ( crustal), SO2, and NOx. EPA computed a composite emission score for each county by multiplying the county's emissions as a fraction of the metropolitan area emissions for each of these pollutants times a corresponding air quality weighting factor. These scores for the metropolitan area counties add to 100. The air quality weighting factors for each area are given below and reflect the percentages of the total estimated " urban excess" value found as carbonaceous particles, miscellaneous inorganic particles ( crustal material), ammonium sulfate, and ammonium nitrate. Tables presented under factor 1 provide the carbonaceous particles, inorganic particles, SO2, and NOx emissions and the composite emission scores for the counties in the corresponding metropolitan area and adjacent counties. Emissions data are derived from the National Emissions Inventory and are for 2001, given in tons per year. Metropolitan area counties are in bold. Emissions data indicate the potential for a county to contribute to observed violations, often making the emissions data the most important factor in assessing boundaries of nonattainment areas.

" Urban excess" values are derived by comparing urban monitored component concentrations against rural monitored component concentrations. Concentrations of the four PM2.5 components are obtained from local data if available ( or, if necessary, from the nearest available urban site), and are compared to available rural concentrations. The monitoring sites used for this purpose are identified below. Although this information is air quality information, it is presented under Factor 1 due to its integration into the analysis of emissions information.

Factor 2. Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas: The air quality analysis looks at the annual averaged design value for each area based on data for 2001 to 2003. Counties without monitors are not listed.

Factor 3. Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development in included versus excluded areas: Tables presented under factor 3 show the 2003 population for each metropolitan area, as well as the population density for each 3 county in that area. Population data indicate the likelihood of population based emissions that might contribute to violations.

Factor 4. Traffic and commuting patterns: The traffic and commuting analysis looks at the number of commuters in each county who drive to another county within the metropolitan area (" Number"), the percent of total commuters in each county who commute to other counties within the metropolitan area (" percent"), as well as the total Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) for each county in thousands of miles. A county with numerous commuters is generally an integral part of the area, and would be an appropriate part of the domain of some mobile source strategies, thus warranting inclusion in the nonattainment area.

Note that the percent of commuters traveling to counties within the metropolitan area is based on the total number of commuters from that county. This total includes commuters who may travel outside the metropolitan area from their county of origin.

Factor 5. Expected growth: The expected growth analysis looks at the percent growth for counties in each metropolitan area from 1990 to 2000.

Factor 6. Meteorology: The meteorology analysis looks at wind data gathered over a ten year period by the National Weather Service. Tables presented under factor 6 list the year round average prevailing wind directions by quadrant for each county in the corresponding metropolitan area. These data show that annual average PM2.5 concentrations are influenced by emissions in any direction at various times, but these data may also suggest that emissions in some directions relative to the violation may be more prone to contribute than emissions in other directions.

Factor 7. Geography/ topography: The geography/ topography analysis looks at physical features of the land that might have an effect on the airshed, and therefore, the distribution of particulate matter over an area. The State of Illinois has no features that significantly influenced EPA's recommended nonattainment areas.

Factor 8. Jurisdictional boundaries: The analysis of jurisdictional boundaries looks at the planning and organizational structure of an area to determine if the implementation of controls in a potential nonattainment area can be carried out in a cohesive manner. 4 Factor 9. Level of control of emission sources: The level of control analysis looks at what controls are currently implemented in each area. 5 9 Factor Analyses for the Illinois Portion of the Chicago Gary Kenosha, IL IN WI Metropolitan Area Discussion: EPA reviewed the nine factors for the thirteen counties within the metropolitan area ( including ten counties in Illinois) as well as all counties adjacent to the metropolitan area in order to determine the appropriate nonattainment area. There are violating monitors in Cook County and in Lake County, Indiana. EPA agrees with the Illinois EPA to include Cook, Du Page, Kane, Lake, Mc Henry, and Will counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County in the Chicago nonattainment area. The bulk of emissions and population are captured without including DeKalb, Grundy, Kankakee and Kendall Counties, since these counties have limited emissions and population. Nevertheless, we support the recommendation by the Illinois EPA to include the three townships in Grundy and Kendall counties in the nonattainment area to maintain consistency with the ozone designations and thereby facilitate planning.

There are eight Illinois counties adjacent to the metropolitan area, including Boone, Ford, Iroquois, LaSalle, Lee, Livingston, Ogle, and Winnebago Counties. Emissions are relatively low for these counties, and no other factor warranted designating these counties nonattainment. Therefore, the following data summaries for factors 3 through 9 do not address these counties.

Factor 1. Emissions in areas potentially included versus excluded from the nonattainment area:

County SOx NOx Carbon Crustal Composite emissions score Cook 61,676 195,428 10,110 8,268 33.0 De Kalb 445 4,885 384 1,875 1.0 Du Page 2,990 29,479 1,731 1,229 4.9 Grundy 6,149 9,589 563 1,235 2.1 Kane 1,395 9,490 1,047 2,326 2.8 Kankakee 551 6,628 490 1,720 1.4 Kendall 292 2,941 265 961 0.7 Lake 14,223 24,488 2,092 1,777 6.7 Mc Henry 637 5,834 564 1,992 1.6 Will 80,847 37,518 1,447 4,120 11.7 Lake, IN 50,110 72,142 5,708 7,588 19.5 6 Porter, IN 21,601 41,315 2,702 5,587 9.2 Kenosha, WI 33,122 27,469 770 1,236 5.4 Boone 849 2,188 215 834 0.6 Ford 219 1,462 216 1,280 0.6 Iroquois 458 4,177 452 2,290 1.3 La Salle 2,140 13,984 845 3,352 2.5 Lee 3,978 4,793 345 1,722 1.3 Livingston 503 4,686 485 2,413 1.3 Ogle 672 4,985 335 1,536 1.1 Winnebago 1,100 10,496 656 1,405 1.9 Benton, IN 101 1,326 215 724 0.5 Berrien, IN 1,390 10,269 740 1,340 0.6 Jasper, IN 34,435 23,020 668 1,838 5.2 La Porte, IN 10,974 19,681 826 1,643 3.3 Newton, IN 89 1,321 160 642 0.4 Pulaski, IN 111 1,187 196 667 0.5 St Joseph, IN 2,850 13,690 1,482 1,825 4.0 Starke, IN 100 2,852 188 551 0.5 White, IN 188 2,495 292 1,185 0.8 Racine, WI 2,309 7,252 662 890 1.9 Walworth, WI 866 5,693 470 908 1.3 Urban increment: Total mass= 3.6 µ g/ m3 25% sulfates; 8% nitrates; 65% carbon; 2% crustal. Urban site= 170310076; Rural site= BOND1 ( Bondville)

Factor 2. Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas:

County 2001 2003 Design Value Cook 17.3 µ g/ m3 Du Page 14.4 µ g/ m3 Kane 14.2 µ g/ m3 Lake 12.8 µ g/ m3 Mc Henry 12.7 µ g/ m3 Will 12.8 µ g/ m3 Lake, IN 17.7 µ g/ m3 Porter, IN 13.8 µ g/ m3 Kenosha, WI 11.7 µ g/ m3 La Porte 13.6 µ g/ m3 7 La Salle 14.1 µ g/ m3 Winnebago 13.6 µ g/ m3 St Joseph, IN 14.3 µ g/ m3 Berrien, MI 12.7 µ g/ m3 Factor 3. Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development in included versus excluded areas:

County 2003 Population Population Density Cook 5,377,507 5,684 De Kalb 91,561 144 Du Page 924,589 2,768 Grundy 38,839 92 Kane 443,041 850 Kankakee 104,657 154 Kendall 61,222 191 Lake 674,850 1,506 Mc Henry 277,710 460 Will 559,861 669 Lake, IN 487,016 980 Porter, IN 150,403 360 Kenosha, WI 154,433 566 Factor 4. Traffic and commuting patterns:

County County VMT Percent Number Cook 44,107,000 12 274,167 De Kalb 729,000 31 13,894 Du Page 6,609,000 40 186,686 Grundy 530,000 46 8,431 Kane 841,000 43 82,968 Kankakee 889,000 19 9,122 Kendall 278,000 67 19,070 Lake 3,549,000 32 100,810 Mc Henry 792,000 47 62,415 Will 2,136,000 55 131,834 Lake, IN 5,012,000 25 52,922 Porter, IN 1,680,000 36 25,819 Kenosha, WI 1,228,000 28 20,506 Factor 5. Expected growth: 8 County Percent growth 1990 2000 Cook 5 De Kalb 14 Du Page 16 Grundy 16 Kane 27 Kankakee 8 Kendall 38 Lake 25 Mc Henry 42 Will 41 Lake, IN 2 Porter, IN 14 Kenosha, WI 17 Factor 6. Meteorology:

Average percent of wind direction by quadrant County Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast Cook 26 37 16 21 De Kalb 27 34 19 21 Du Page 26 37 17 21 Grundy 26 36 17 21 Kane 26 35 18 21 Kankakee 25 38 17 19 Kendall 26 36 17 21 Lake 26 37 17 20 Mc Henry 28 32 19 20 Will 26 37 17 21 Lake, IN 25 38 17 19 Porter, IN 25 38 18 19 Kenosha, WI 28 35 18 20 Factor 7. Geography/ topography: The geography/ topography analysis looks at physical features of the land that might have an effect on the airshed, and therefore, the distribution of particulate matter over an area. The State of Illinois has no features that significantly influenced EPA's intended nonattainment areas. 9 Factor 8. Jurisdictional boundaries: The Chicago Area Transportation Study ( CATS) Policy Committee is the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) for the northeastern Illinois region.  source: CATS webpage, http:// www. catsmpo. com/

The Illinois portion of the Chicago ozone nonattainment area consists of the following counties: Cook, Du Page, Kane, Lake, Mc Henry, Will, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County.

Factor 9. Level of control of emission sources: The state provided no information about the level of control of emission sources for this area.

9 Factor Analysis for the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area Discussion: EPA reviewed the nine factors for the counties within the metropolitan area as well as counties adjacent to the metropolitan area in order to determine the appropriate nonattainment area. There are violating monitors in Madison and St. Clair counties as well as in the City of Saint Louis. EPA agrees with the Illinois EPA to include Madison, Monroe and St. Clair counties in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area.

Illinois recommended a designation of unclassified for a portion of Randolph County, specifically the township that contains the Baldwin power plant. EPA intends to designate Randolph County nonattainment as part of the Saint Louis nonattainment area. EPA notes that the Baldwin plant has recently reduced its emissions significantly. Illinois' submittal did not indicate whether these emission reductions are enforceable or how much potential exists for further emission reductions at this facility ( e. g. through annual operation of NOx emission controls). Randolph County adjoins a county that is monitoring a violation of the standard, and the most significant emissions are located in the portion of the county closest to the violation. These emissions are located where winds would commonly blow the emissions toward the observed violations. Emissions are moderately high even after the recent reductions. EPA concludes that emissions are sufficient to contribute to violations in the Saint Louis area. Illinois did not provide adequate information to justify designating less than the full Randolph County nonattainment, but Illinois may wish to provide further support for including just a portion of Randolph County in the Saint Louis nonattainment area. 10 There are 11 other Illinois counties adjacent to the Metropolitan area, namely Bond, Calhoun, Fayette, Greene, Macoupin, Marion, Montgomery, Morgan, Pike, Sangamon, and Washington Counties. Emissions for these counties are relatively low and no other factor warranted designating the adjacent counties nonattainment. Therefore, the following data summaries for factors 3 through 9 do not address these counties.

Besides Randolph County, Illinois also recommended a designation of unclassifiable for Jersey County, and recommended attainment for all other counties in the state that are not part of the recommended Saint Louis or Chicago nonattainment areas. EPA intends to promulgate a designation of attainment/ unclassifiable for all counties that are not part of its intended Saint Louis or Chicago nonattainment areas.

Factor 1. Emissions in areas potentially included versus excluded from the nonattainment area:

County SOx NOx Carbon Crustal Composite emissions score Clinton 624 3,717 238 1,067 2.0 Jersey 246 1,755 165 544 1.2 Madison 69,938 37,593 1,563 4,425 16.8 Monroe 244 2,489 206 647 1.6 St Clair 4,471 11,813 863 1,996 6.8 Franklin, MO 45,216 15,482 918 2,864 9.1 Jefferson, MO 52,671 13,612 1,160 3,291 10.4 Lincoln, MO 221 2,935 273 1,358 2.1 St Charles, MO 40,596 25,793 896 2,415 10.2 St Louis, MO 30,400 53,358 3,456 2,897 27.4 Warren, MO 324 1,803 205 674 1.5 St Louis ( City), MO 14,647 27,193 1,214 958 11.0 Bond 177 1,883 137 628 1.1 Calhoun 192 1,162 88 170 0.7 Fayette 290 2,795 223 786 1.7 Greene 196 1,409 159 771 1.2 Macoupin 281 3,123 344 1,415 2.5 Marion 297 3,879 290 891 2.3 Montgomery 38,079 18,254 625 2,230 7.6 Morgan 24,066 6,713 500 1,725 4.7 11 Pike 6,252 4,850 259 901 2.4 Randolph 23,984 33,023 559 1,863 8.9 Sangamon 16,411 19,811 900 2,742 8.7 Washington 167 2,045 199 814 1.5 Crawford, MO 110 2,199 183 396 1.4 Dent, MO 100 521 121 431 0.8 Gasconade, MO 248 1,727 132 393 1.0 Iron, MO 34,225 1,851 140 291 2.1 Madison, MO 47 727 86 143 0.6 Montgomery, MO 364 1,740 145 719 1.2 Perry, MO 349 2,776 218 531 1.7 Phelps, MO 754 2,990 244 645 1.9 Pike, MO 15,205 10,931 206 773 3.3 St Francois, MO 697 4,204 328 825 2.5 Ste Genevieve, MO 3,666 7,315 255 940 2.7 Washington, MO 152 1,161 137 322 1.0 Urban increment: Total mass= 6.2 µ g/ m3 8% sulfates; 29% nitrates; 58% carbon; 5% crustal. Urban site= 295100085; Rural site= MING1 ( Mingo)

Factor 2. Air quality in potentially included versus excluded areas:

County 2001 2003 Design Value Madison 17.5 µ g/ m3 St Clair 16.2 µ g/ m3 Jefferson, MO 14.5 µ g/ m3 St Charles, MO 14.3 µ g/ m3 St Louis, MO 14.0 µ g/ m3 St Louis ( City), MO 15.2 µ g/ m3 Randolph 12.4 µ g/ m3 Sangamon 13.3 µ g/ m3 Ste Genevieve, MO 13.6 µ g/ m3 Factor 3. Population density and degree of urbanization including commercial development in included versus excluded areas: County 2003 Population Population Density Clinton 35,855 76 12 Jersey 21,858 59 Madison 261,409 361 Monroe 29,058 75 St Clair 257,904 388 Franklin, MO 95,890 104 Jefferson, MO 203,993 310 Lincoln, MO 42,280 67 St Charles, MO 303,030 540 St Louis, MO 1,018,102 2,004 Warren, MO 26,193 61 St Louis ( City), MO 338,353 5,457 Randolph 33,641 58 Factor 4. Traffic and commuting patterns: County County VMT Percent Number Clinton 375,000 35 5,915 Jersey 196,000 51 5,259 Madison 2,768,000 35 43,125 Monroe 264,000 57 8,172 St Clair 2,857,000 36 40,389 Franklin, MO 1,391,000 36 16,422 Jefferson, MO 2,511,000 63 61,991 Lincoln, MO 493,000 52 9,622 St Charles, MO 2,738,000 52 77,347 St Louis, MO 11,553,000 27 134,153 Warren, MO 348,000 54 6,414 St Louis ( City), MO 4,178,000 40 56,734 Randolph 278,000 20 2,798 Factor 5. Expected growth:

County Percent growth 1990 2000 Clinton 5 Jersey 5 Madison 4 Monroe 23 St Clair  3 13 Franklin, MO 16 Jefferson, MO 16 Lincoln, MO 35 St Charles, MO 33 St Louis, MO 2 Warren, MO 26 St Louis ( City), MO  12 Randolph  2 Factor 6. Meteorology: Average percent of wind direction by quadrant County Northwest Southwest Southeast Northeast Clinton 28 29 29 15 Jersey 28 28 29 15 Madison 28 28 29 15 Monroe 28 28 29 15 St Clair 28 28 29 15 Franklin, MO 27 27 31 15 Jefferson, MO 28 27 31 15 Lincoln, MO 27 27 31 15 St Charles, MO 29 27 30 15 St Louis, MO 29 27 30 15 Warren, MO 27 27 31 16 St Louis ( City), MO 29 27 30 15 Randolph 28 28 29 15 Factor 7. Geography/ topography: The geography/ topography analysis looks at physical features of the land that might have an effect on the airshed, and therefore, the distribution of particulate matter over an area. The State of Illinois has no features that significantly influenced EPA's intended nonattainment areas.

Factor 8. Jurisdictional boundaries: The East West Gateway Council of Governments ( EWGCC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO) for the bi state St. Louis area.  source: EWGCC webpage, http:// www. ewgateway. org/ 14 The Illinois portion of the Saint Louis ozone nonattainment area consists of the following counties: Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair.

Factor 9. Level of control of emission sources: The State has provided no information about the level of control of emission sources for this area. Although EPA is aware that the Baldwin Generating Station is purchasing low sulfur coal and has installed NOx emission controls on some of its units, EPA does not have information as to the permanence of those reductions and whether the NOx emission controls are operated on an annual basis.


Table 1  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Mgr $ 35.00/ Hr ( per year for 3 year period) Tech $ 26.00/

Hr ( 3 year period) Respon.

Hr/ Yr ( 3 year period) Labor Cost/

Year Capital/

Startup Cost O& M Cost Total No. of Respondents Total Hrs/ Yr ( 3 year period) Total Cost/ Yr Completing Section 1 0.33 0.50 0.83 $ 24.67 n/ a n/ a 1034 862 $ 21,254.44 Completing Section 2 2.50 1.50 4.00 $ 126.50 n/ a n/ a 33 132 $ 16,698.00 Completing Section 3 1.75 0.50 2.25 $ 74.25 n/ a n/ a 33 74 $ 5,513.06 Total 4.58 2.50 7.08 $ 225.42 1100 1068 $ 43,465.51 Table 2  Agency Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Mgr $ 65.00/ Hr Tech $ 31.00/ Hr Agency Hr/ Yr Labor Cost/

Year Capital/

Startup Cost O& M Cost No. of EPA employees Total Hrs/ Yr Total Cost/ Yr Develop questionnaire 1.00 5.33 6.33 $ 230.33 n/ a n/ a 6 38.00 $ 8,752.67 Distribute questionnaire to the respondents; 0.00 4.00 4.00 $ 124.00 n/ a n/ a 3 12.00 $ 1,488.00 Answer any questions the respondents may have; 0.00 1.67 1.67 $ 51.67 n/ a n/ a 1 1.67 $ 86.11 Collect, record and organize data submissions; 1.00 12.00 13.00 $ 437.00 n/ a n/ a 4 52.00 $ 22,724.00 Distribute the data to Congress. 0.67 1.67 2.33 $ 95.00 n/ a n/ a 2 4.67 $ 443.33 Total 2.67 24.67 27.33 $ 938.00 16 108.33 $ 33,494.11