[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16533-16538]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06110]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096; FRL-10015-36-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove the state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
California pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act'') for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
2015 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'')
for ozone. Specifically, the EPA is approving the SIP revision for all
elements except those that relate to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). EPA is partially approving and partially
disapproving three elements of the SIP revision due to PSD deficiencies
in certain air pollution control or air quality management districts
(APCD, AQMD, or ``district''). The disapprovals will not create any new
consequences for these districts or the EPA as the districts are
already subject to the EPA's federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. As
part of this action, we are also reclassifying certain regions of the
State for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to ozone. We
are also approving into the SIP two updated state provisions addressing
CAA conflict of interest requirements for the entire state, and
emergency episode plans for the Amador County APCD, Calaveras County
APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County
APCD. Finally, we are approving an exemption from emergency episode
planning requirements for ozone for the Lake County AQMD.

DATES: This rule is effective April 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096. 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: Panah Stauffer, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3247, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
    C. California's Submittals
    D. EPA's Proposal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
    A. Partial Approvals and Partial Disapprovals
    B. Approval of Updated California Code of Regulations Provisions
    C. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode
Planning
    D. Approval of Emergency Episode Contingency Plans
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to the
EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a

primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP revision that
provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such
NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains the infrastructure SIP
requirements, which generally relate to the information, authorities,
compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures
that constitute the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality
management program. These infrastructure SIP requirements (or
``elements'') required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i)
Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs
required under part D (nonattainment new source review (NSR)), and (ii)
section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address
requirements for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C)
or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in
the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on-and off-
road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment
and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health
effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of ozone,
particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air
containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which
can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung
diseases.
    On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for
ozone.\1\ The EPA had previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979,
1997 and 2008. The 2015 ozone NAAQS revised the level of the standards
to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) averaged across eight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 65292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. California's Submittals

    In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption of
California SIPs and SIP revisions and submission to the EPA. CARB
submitted its infrastructure SIP revision (``2018 Infrastructure SIP''
or ``California's 2018 Submittal'') for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on October
1, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter dated October 1, 2018, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 25, 2020, CARB supplemented its 2018 Infrastructure SIP by
submitting ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis
Obispo County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.\3\ It also
submitted an exemption request from emergency episode planning
requirements for Lake County AQMD based on that District's attainment
status. This submittal (``California's 2020 Submittal'') addresses CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Letter dated June 16, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX, with Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County, San Luis
Obispo County, Northern Sierra, Tuolumne County, Mariposa County,
and Calaveras County and Exemption Request for Lake County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We refer to these submittals collectively herein as ``California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.''

D. EPA's Proposal

    On October 16, 2020, we proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.\4\ Specifically,
we proposed to approve the submittals for the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E), 110(a)(2)(F),
110(a)(2)(G), 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L), and
110(a)(2)(M). We also proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove the submittal for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D),
and 110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air
districts. These partial disapprovals will not create any new
consequences for these districts or the EPA as the districts are
already subject to the EPA's federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. They
will also not create any new highway sanctions, which are not triggered
by disapprovals of infrastructure SIPs. Today's rule finalizes the
October 16, 2020 proposal in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 85 FR 65755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the EPA is not acting on the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit emission sources
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA will propose action
on the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on November 16, 2020. During this period, the EPA received
one comment from an anonymous commenter.\5\ The comment is not relevant
to the EPA's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The comment letter is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

A. Partial Approvals and Partial Disapprovals

    Under CAA section 110(a), we are partially approving and partially
disapproving California's Infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving the submittal for the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E),
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(G),s 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L),

and 110(a)(2)(M). We are also partially approving and partially
disapproving the submittal for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D),
and 110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program deficiencies in Amador, Antelope
Valley, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa,
Mendocino, Modoc, Mojave Desert, North Coast, Northern Sierra, Northern
Sonoma, Sacramento Metro, San Diego, Shasta, Siskiyou, South Coast,
Tehama, and Tuolumne air districts. These partial disapprovals will not
create any new consequences as the air districts with PSD deficiencies
are already subject to PSD federal implementation plans (FIPs).
    At this time, EPA is not acting on the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibit emission sources
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA will propose action
on the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking.

B. Approval of Updated California Code of Regulations Provisions

    California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals included an updated
version of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 2, section
18700, which maintains the key provisions of that section and also
incorporates language in CCR, Title 2, section 18701 that the EPA
previously approved into the SIP to meet the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. It also included
an updated version of CCR, Title 2, section 18701. We proposed to
approve the updated versions of CCR, Title 2, sections 18700 and 18701
into the SIP in our October 16, 2020 rulemaking. These updated
provisions continue to meet the conflict of interest requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. We are finalizing approval, as
proposed, of these updated provisions with this action.

C. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode Planning

    In its 2018 submittal, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify three
air quality control regions (AQCRs) with respect to the emergency
episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR
part 51, subpart H, as applicable to ozone.\6\ The air quality tests
for classifying AQCRs are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 and are
pollutant-specific (e.g., ozone) rather than being specific to any
given NAAQS (e.g., 1997 ozone NAAQS). Consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of AQCRs must rely on the most recent
three years of air quality data. For ozone, an AQCR with a 1-hour ozone
level greater than 0.10 ppm over the most recent three-year period must
be classified Priority I, while all other areas are classified Priority
III. AQCRs that are classified Priority I are required to have SIP-
approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified
Priority III are not required to have such plans, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.151 and 51.152. We interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means
for states to review air quality data and request a higher or lower
classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory
basis for the EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In our proposed rulemaking, we inadvertently stated that
CARB requested to re-classify the AQCRs for NO2 and
SO2. CARB did not make such a request in either of its
submittals for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and we did not propose to re-
classify the AQCRs for those NAAQS in our proposal. See 85 FR 65755,
65773 (October 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of California's ambient air quality data for 2015-
2017, we are finalizing approval, as proposed, of California's request
to reclassify Lake County, North Central Coast, and South Central Coast
to Priority I areas for ozone.

D. Approval of Emergency Episode Contingency Plans

    To meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G), California's 2020
Submittal included the ozone emergency episode contingency plans for
Amador County APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
Tuolumne County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, and Calaveras County APCD,
as well as the exemption request for Lake County AQMD based on its
attainment status. The contingency plans meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.152(a) to specify two or more stages of episode criteria,
provide for public announcement whenever any episode stage has been
determined to exist, and to specify adequate emission control actions
to be taken at each episode stage. The emergency episode contingency
plans also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(b) to provide for
prompt acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions,
to provide for inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with
applicable emission control action requirements, and provide for
communications procedures for transmitting status reports and orders as
to emission control actions to be taken during an episode stage. We are
finalizing approval, as proposed, of these emergency episode
contingency plans into the California SIP.
    Because of Lake County's attainment status for ozone, it meets the
criteria of 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1) that permits the Administrator to
exempt those portions of Priority I regions that have been designated
as attainment under section 107 of the CAA. The mix of ozone precursor
sources in Lake County, as well as the historical 1-hour ozone levels
below 0.10 ppm make it unlikely that additional measures are needed to
keep ozone pollution below the significant harm level of 0.6 ppm. We
are finalizing approval, as proposed, of the request to exempt the Lake
County AQMD from emergency episode contingency planning requirements of
40 CFR 51.152.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference as described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. 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).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves, or conditionally approves, state plans 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practical 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 1, 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(551) and (c)(552)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (551) The following plan was submitted on October 1, 2018, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) California Infrastructure SIP Revision for the 0.070 parts per
million Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard, release date September 27, 2018,
excluding Attachments 1, 3, and 4.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (552) The following plans were submitted on June 25, 2020, by the
Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated June 16, 2020.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Amador Air District.
    (1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated August 26, 2019 and
adopted, as Resolution No. 19-06, on October 15, 2019.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``San Luis Obispo County Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,''
adopted, as Resolution No. 2020-1, on January 22, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (C) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
    (1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' adopted, as Resolution #2020-
01, on February 24, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (D) Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' adopted, as Resolution No.
32-20, on April 7, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (E) Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Final Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated February 21, 2020
and adopted, as Resolution No. 1APCD-2020-4, on April 7, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (F) Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,'' dated December 2019 and
adopted, as Resolution No. 20200526r056, on May 26, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Lake County Air Quality Management
District.
    (1) ``Request for Exemption of the Ozone Emergency Episode Plan,''
adopted on April 7, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  52.220a amend table 1 in paragraph (c) by revising the
entries for ``18700'' and ``18701'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220a  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                            Table 1--EPA-Approved Statutes and State Regulations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State                                Additional
         State  citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
18700............................  Basic rule and           12/31/2016  [INSERT Federal      Filed on December
                                    guide to conflict                    Register             17, 1976,
                                    of interest                          CITATION], 3/30/     effective upon
                                    regulations.                         2021.                filing, and last
                                                                                amendment filed on
                                                                                December 1, 2016,
                                                                                operative December
                                                                                31, 2016.
                                                                                Previously
                                                                                approved on 4/1/
                                                                                2016, 81 FR 18766.
18701............................  Determining Whether       7/10/2015  [INSERT Federal      Filed on January
                                    a Financial Effect                   Register             22, 1976,
                                    Is Reasonably                        CITATION], 3/30/     effective February
                                    Foreseeable.                         2021.                21, 1976, and last
                                                                                amendment filed on
                                                                                July 10, 2015,
                                                                                operative July 10,
                                                                                2015. Previously
                                                                                approved on 4/1/
                                                                                2016, 81 FR 18766.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable
  SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that
  are cited in certain regulations listed in Table 1. Approved California statutes that are nonregulatory or
  quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).

* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.221 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.221  Classification of regions.

    The California plan was evaluated on the basis of the following
classifications:

                                                                Table 1 to Sec.   52.221
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pollutant
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Air quality control region                                                                                Photochemical
                                                              Particulate       Sulfur oxides     Nitrogen dioxide   Carbon monoxide        oxidants
                                                                 matter                                                                  (hydrocarbons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Basin Valley Intrastate............................                  I                III                III                III                III
Lake County Intrastate...................................                 II                III                III                III                  I
Lake Tahoe Intrastate....................................                 II                III                III                  I                III
Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate......................                  I                III                III                  I                  I
Mountain Counties Intrastate.............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
North Central Coast Intrastate...........................                 II                III                III                III                  I
North Coast Intrastate...................................                 II                III                III                III                III
Northeast Plateau Intrastate.............................                III                III                III                III                III
Sacramento Valley Intrastate.............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Diego Intrastate.....................................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate........................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Joaquin Valley Intrastate............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
South Central Coast Intrastate...........................                III                III                III                III                  I
Southeast Desert Intrastate..............................                  I                III                III                III                  I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
5. Section 52.223 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.223  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (p) 2015 ozone NAAQS: The 2018 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on
October 1, 2018, is partially disapproved for specific requirements of
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
air pollution control districts (APCDs), air quality management
districts (AQMDs), or air quality control regions (AQCRs) listed in
this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (for sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with stack
heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion techniques'' as
defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major modifications under
52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued permits under 52.21
for which applications were received by July 31, 1985, only) for
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other
state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (for sources subject to a FIP,
including cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with
stack heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion
techniques'' as defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major
modifications under 52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued
permits under 52.21 for which applications were received by July 31,
1985, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with
measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, only), and (J).

    (4) Sacramento Metro AQMD (for sources subject to a FIP, including
cogeneration and resource recovery projects, projects with stack
heights greater than 65 meters or that use ``dispersion techniques'' as
defined in 51.100 (which are major sources or major modifications under
52.21), and sources for which the EPA has issued permits under 52.21
for which applications were received by July 31, 1985, only) for
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other
state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and
(J).
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the federal PSD
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for
South Coast AQMD where the federal PSD program applies to all
pollutants except greenhouse gases.
    (6) All areas in California that are subject to the federal PSD
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-06110 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7738-7739]
[DOCID:fr19fe09-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0005; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin), has determined that
certain passenger car tires manufactured between September 18, 2008 and
October 10, 2008 did not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(e) and
S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 139 New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Michelin has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Michelin has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Michelin's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 2,240 size P195/60R15 (87T) Michelin
Harmony brand passenger car tires manufactured between September 18,
2008 and October 10, 2008 at Michelin's plant located in Pictou,
Canada. Approximately 1,590 of these tires have been delivered to
Michelin's customers. The remaining tires (approximately 650) are being
held in Michelin's possession until they can be correctly relabeled.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the tires that have already passed from the manufacturer
to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
    Paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in
pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *

    Michelin explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on the reference side of the tires
incorrectly describes the number of plies in the tread area of the
tires. Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently
manufactured with ``Tread Plies: 2 Polyester + 2 polyamide + 2 steel;
Sidewall plies: 2 polyester'' marked on the intended outboard sidewall.
The labeling should have been ``Tread Plies: 2 Polyester + 1 polyamide
+ 2 steel; Sidewall plies: 2 polyester.'' Michelin also explains that
the marking on the other sidewall of the tires correctly describes the
plies in the tread area of the tires.

    Michelin states that it discovered the mold labeling error that
caused the non-compliance during a routine quality audit.
    Michelin argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not
affect the strength of the tires and all other labeling requirements
have been met.
    Michelin points out that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
sidewall marking noncompliances that Michelin believes are similar to
the instant noncompliance.
    Michelin also stated that it has corrected the problem that caused
these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
    In summation, Michelin states that it believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no
corrective action is warranted.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).
    You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: March 23, 2009.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 12, 2009.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E9-3486 Filed 2-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53159-53160]
[DOCID:fr16oc09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0247; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-07-AD;
Amendment 39-16040; AD 2009-21-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-
62T-46C12 Auxiliary Power Units

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-46C12 auxiliary power units
(APUs). This AD requires upgrading the software in the APU full-
authority digital controller (FADEC) from software version 02.01.000 to
version 03.00.000. This AD results from two reports of APU compartment
explosions due to over-fueling of the APU at low revolutions-per-minute
during the start sequence. We are issuing this AD to prevent over-
fueling of the APU during the start sequence, which could lead to fuel
explosions, injury, and damage to the APU and the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 20, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations as of November 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from Hamilton Sundstrand Technical Publications, One Hamilton Road,
Mail Stop: 1A-3-Z63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; telephone (860) 654-
3575.
    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Pesuit, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand
Power Systems T-62T-46C12 APUs. We published the proposed AD in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2009 (74 FR 16811). That action proposed
to require upgrading the software in the APU FADEC from software
version 02.01.000 to version 03.00.000.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment received.
    One commenter states that we should reference Revision 2 of
Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems Service Bulletin (SB) No. 4503067-49-
12 instead of referencing Revision 1 of that SB. Revision 1 had a
technical error in it that prevented loading the software change.
    We agree. We changed the AD to reference Revision 2 of the SB.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 59 Hamilton Sundstrand Power
Systems T-62T-46C12 APUs installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about three work-hours per APU to
perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-
hour. There is no required part cost. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $14,160.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2009-21-03 Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems: Amendment 39-16040.
Docket No. FAA-2009-0247; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-07-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-
46C12 auxiliary power units (APUs). These APUs are installed on, but
not limited to, Bombardier Inc. DHC-8-400 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two reports of APU compartment
explosions due to over-fueling of the APU at low revolutions-per-
minute during the start sequence. We are issuing this AD to prevent
over-fueling of the APU during the start sequence, which could lead
to fuel explosion, injury, and damage to the APU and the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Software Upgrade of the APU Full-Authority Digital Electronic
Controller (FADEC)

    (f) At the next FADEC removal, but no later than 18 months after
the effective date of this AD, upgrade the software in the APU FADEC
from software version 02.01.000 to version 03.00.000, and change the
FADEC part number (P/N) from 4503069E to 4503069F.
    (g) Use paragraphs 3.A through 3.F.(2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems Service Bulletin
No. 4503067-49-12, Revision 2, dated March 9, 2009, to do the
software upgrade and the FADEC P/N change.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has
the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact Roger Pesuit, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems Service
Bulletin No. 4503067-49-12, Revision 2, dated March 9, 2009, to
perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service
bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Technical Publications, One Hamilton
Road, Mail Stop: 1A-3-Z63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; telephone
(860) 654-3575, for a copy of this service information. You may
review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 30, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24396 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50811-50812]
[DOCID:fr28au08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-438-000]

WTG Hugoton, LP; Notice of Technical Conference

August 21, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at
10 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's July 31, 2008 Order \1\ directed that a technical
conference be held to address the issues raised by WTG Hugoton, LP's
(WTG) July 1, 2008, tariff filing to reflect annual adjustments to its
fuel retention percentages (FRPs). Commission Staff and parties will
have the opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised by WTG's
filing including, but not limited to, technical, engineering and
operational issues, and issues related to the

interpretation of tariff provisions governing WTG's FRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\WTG Hugoton, LP, 124 FERC ]61,119 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Timothy Duggan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19923 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51324-51326]
[DOCID:fr02se08-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58414; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Foreign Members

August 22, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 20, 2008, the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to adopt a new rule regarding foreign members in
place of its current rule regarding qualifications of foreign member
organizations. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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, CBOE 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 CBOE 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 adopt a new rule
regarding foreign members in place of CBOE's current rule regarding
qualifications of foreign member organizations. CBOE's current rule
regarding qualifications of foreign member organizations is set forth
in CBOE Rule 3.4. The new rule regarding foreign members is proposed to
be included in Rule 3.4 in place of the current provisions of that
Rule.
    Under the new rule, a CBOE member \2\ that does not maintain an
office in the United States responsible for preparing and maintaining
financial and other reports required to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and the Exchange would be
required to: (i) Prepare all such reports, and maintain a general
ledger chart of account and any description thereof, in English and
U.S. dollars; (ii) reimburse the Exchange for any expense incurred in
connection with examination of the member to the extent that such
expenses exceed the cost of examining a member located within the
continental United States; and (iii) ensure the availability of an
individual fluent in English knowledgeable in securities and financial
matters to assist the representatives of the Exchange during
examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under Section 1.1(b) of the CBOE Constitution, the term
``member'' includes both an individual member and a member
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The foregoing requirements would take the place of the current
provisions of Rule 3.4 relating to qualifications of foreign member
organizations.\3\ The Exchange believes that it has and will continue
to have adequate regulatory jurisdiction over foreign members by virtue
of the CBOE rule provisions that are generally applicable to all CBOE
members and does not believe that the existing additional requirements
in Rule 3.4 for foreign member organizations are necessary for the
effective regulation of those organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Current Rule 3.4 provides that an organization that is not
organized under the laws of one of the states of the United States
must satisfy the following requirements in order to be a member
organization: (i) The organization must be a corporation or
partnership organized under the laws of a country other than the
United States with respect to which an information sharing
agreement, memorandum of understanding, or treaty is in effect that
provides the Commission with access to information concerning
securities trading activity in that country; (ii) the organization
must disclose to the Exchange all persons associated with the
organization and all parents of the organization, through all tiers
of ownership, until the ultimate individual beneficial owners of the
organization are disclosed; (iii) the organization must maintain in
English and at a location in the United States (A) the books and
records of the organization that relate to its business on the
Exchange, including, but not limited to, any trading records
relating to trading activity on the Exchange and (B) any other books
and records of the organization that an organization registered as a
broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78o) is required to maintain at a
location in the United States; (iv) the organization must maintain
its financial records in accordance with United States accounting
standards; (v) the organization must agree to permit inspections by
the Exchange and the Commission of the foreign operations of the
organization related to its securities business; (vi) the
organization must waive any applicable secrecy laws and be exempted
from any applicable blocking statutes in the domiciliary
jurisdiction of the organization; (vii) the organization must
provide to the Exchange an opinion of legal counsel of the
domiciliary jurisdiction of the organization which certifies that
(A) there are no applicable secrecy laws or blocking statutes in
that jurisdiction or (B) that the organization has effectively
waived any applicable secrecy laws or is exempted from any
applicable blocking statutes in that jurisdiction; (viii) any
customer of the organization that utilizes the organization to
execute orders on the Exchange must have waived any applicable
secrecy laws and be exempted from any applicable blocking statutes
in the domiciliary jurisdiction of the organization; (ix) the
organization must agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the federal
courts of the United States and the courts of Illinois and to
irrevocably waive, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any
objection which the organization may have based on venue or forum
non conveniens with respect to any action initiated in such courts;
(x) the organization must appoint a process agent in Illinois to
receive, on the behalf of the organization, process which may be
served in any legal action or proceeding; (xi) the organization must
own its Exchange membership(s); (xii) the organization must be
registered as a broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Act
(15 U.S.C. 78o); (xiii) the organization must satisfy the foregoing
requirements in a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange and
must satisfy such additional requirements that the Exchange
reasonably deems appropriate; and (xiv) the organization must meet
the other qualification requirements for membership under the
Constitution and Rules (except that a foreign member organization
that is approved to act solely as a lessor is not required to comply
with items (iii)(B) and (xii) above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, each CBOE member organization is required under CBOE
Rule 3.7(e) to execute a consent to jurisdiction pledging to abide by
the Constitution and Rules of the Exchange, as from time to time
amended, and by all circulars, notices, directives, or decisions
adopted pursuant to or made in accordance with the Constitution and
Rules. Similarly, direct owners and executive officers of each member
organization are also required pursuant

to CBOE Rules 3.6(b) and 3.7(e) to execute such a consent to
jurisdiction.
    In addition, CBOE Rule 3.6(a) subjects all associated persons of a
member organization to the Constitution and Rules of the Exchange. Rule
3.6(a) also requires associated persons to provide information to the
Exchange with respect to their relationship and dealings with their
associated member organization and securities business and to permit
the Exchange to examine their books and records in this regard.
    The authority of the Exchange over member organizations and their
associated persons is further enlarged by CBOE Rule 17.1, which
subjects members and associated persons to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Exchange. Specifically, pursuant to Rule 17.1, any
member organization or person associated with a member organization
that is alleged to have violated or aided and abetted a violation of
any provision of the Act,\4\ the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder, any constitutional provision, bylaw, or rule of the
Exchange, or any interpretation thereof or resolution of the CBOE Board
of Directors regulating the conduct of business on the Exchange is
subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, if there are issues of concern with respect to a
particular foreign applicant for Exchange membership, the Exchange has
broad authority in granting or denying Exchange membership and
association with an Exchange member. In particular, under CBOE Rule
3.5(b), the Exchange may deny (or may condition) membership or may
prevent a person from becoming associated (or may condition an
association) with a member for the same reasons that the Commission may
deny or revoke a broker-dealer registration and for those reasons
required or allowed under the Act.\5\ The Exchange may also deny or
condition membership or association for various reasons under CBOE Rule
3.5(c), including, among other reasons, if the applicant is unable to
satisfactorily demonstrate a capacity to adhere to all applicable
Exchange, Commission, Options Clearing Corporation, and Federal Reserve
Board policies, rules, and regulations, including those concerning
record-keeping, reporting, finance, and trading procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new provisions of Rule 3.4
will further enhance this existing authority by helping to facilitate
examinations of foreign members. In particular, the Exchange believes
that it and its representatives will be better able to conduct such
examinations because foreign members will be required to maintain
records in English and U.S. dollars, to have available during such
examinations a knowledgeable person who speaks English, and to cover
the incremental cost of such examinations beyond what it would cost to
conduct an examination within the continental United States.
    The Exchange also notes that this approach is consistent with the
approach taken in this regard by various other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') which do not have rule provisions like those
set forth in current CBOE Rule 3.4 and which instead have rule
provisions which are substantially the same as the new provisions of
Rule 3.4 proposed by this rule change.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Rule 301(b),
Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') Section 2(g), NASD Rule 1090 of
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') Rules, and
Chicago Stock Exchange (``CHX'') Rule 1(f). The proposed rule change
uses the formulation of these rules utilized by ISE and BOX. The
FINRA and CHX rules are equivalent to the ISE and BOX rules in this
regard, except that the FINRA and CHX rules have an additional
provision which requires a foreign member to utilize, directly or
indirectly, the services of a broker-dealer registered with the
Commission, a bank, or clearing agency registered with the
Commission located in the United States in clearing all transactions
involving members of FINRA or CHX, as applicable, except where both
parties to a transaction agree otherwise. CBOE is not proposing to
include a similar provision in Rule 3.4 because CBOE already has
rules that impose a similar requirement, in that all CBOE members
are required to clear their CBOE transactions through a CBOE
Clearing Member and through The Options Clearing Corporation (which
is a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission and that
is located in the United States). (See, e.g., CBOE Rules 3.28 and
6.50.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this era of increased internationalization of the securities
markets when foreign participation in the U.S. securities markets has
become more and more prevalent, the Exchange does not believe that its
rules should create undue barriers to member participation on the
Exchange by foreign organizations. However, the Exchange has found that
the existing extensive requirements in Rule 3.4 have tended to either
discourage foreign organizations from becoming members of the Exchange
or made it more difficult for them to do so. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will enhance competition on the Exchange and
between SROs by facilitating foreign member participation on the
Exchange, which in turn will inure to the benefit of the securities
markets, while at the same time maintaining broad regulatory authority
over foreign members, consistent with the authority in this regard
possessed by other SROs.
    In addition to the proposed changes to Rule 3.4, the Exchange is
proposing to make conforming changes to CBOE Rule 3.3. Rule 3.3
addresses qualifications of member organizations and its applicability
is currently limited to U.S. organizations because current Rule 3.4
separately addresses qualifications of foreign member organizations.
Rule 3.3 is proposed to be revised to eliminate all references that
limit its current applicability to U.S. organizations. Accordingly,
going forward both U.S. and foreign organizations would need to satisfy
the qualification requirements under Rule 3.3, and in addition, foreign
members would be required to comply with the new requirements of Rule
3.4 as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    In light of the extensive regulatory authority of the Exchange over
all Exchange members, that Exchange members are subject to the
comprehensive regulation under Exchange rules and federal and state
securities laws, and that the proposed rule change will enhance this
authority and regulation by helping to facilitate the examination of
foreign members, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(2) and 6(b)(5) in particular, by
facilitating member participation on the Exchange by foreign
organizations and by removing impediments to a free and open market,
without diminishing the protection of investors and the public
interest.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change (i) does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and

(iii) by its terms, does not become operative for thirty days after the
date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization has given 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 proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
At any time within sixty days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-87 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-CBOE-2008-87. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-
CBOE-2008-87, and should be submitted on or before September 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20229 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21688-21689]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9552]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61944; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Strike Price Intervals and Trading Hours for Options on Index-Linked
Securities

April 20, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On March 11, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish strike-price
intervals for options on Index-Linked Securities and to establish
trading hours for these products. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 31, 2010.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61766 (March 23,
2010), 75 FR 16221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Prior to the commencement of trading options on Index-Linked
Securities (also known as exchange-traded notes (``ETN'')), Nasdaq has
proposed to establish strike price intervals and trading hours for
these new products. The Commission has approved the Nasdaq's and other
options exchanges proposals to enable the listing and trading of
options on Index-Linked Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58571
(September 17, 2008), 73 FR 55188 (September 24, 2008) (SR-Phlx-
2008-60); 59923 (May 14, 2009), 74 FR 23902 (May 21, 2009) (SR-
NASDAQ-2009-046); 58204 (July 22, 2008), 73 FR 43807 (July 28, 2008)
(approving SR-CBOE-2008-64); 58203 (July 22, 2008), 73 FR 43812
(July 28, 2008) (approving SR-NYSEArca-2008-57); 58985 (November 10,
2008), 73 FR 72538 (November 28, 2008) (approving SR-ISE-2008-86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

$1 Strikes for ILS (ETN) Options

    Nasdaq's proposal would extend the trading conventions applicable
to options on exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') to options on Index-
Linked Securities. Specifically, under the proposed rule change, strike
price intervals of $1 will be permitted where the strike price is less
than $200. Where the strike price is greater than $200, $5 strikes will
be permitted. These proposed changes are reflected by the addition of
Chapter IV, Section 6, Supplementary Material .01(c) to Section 6.
    In support of its proposal, Nasdaq stated that it believes the
marketplace and investors will be expecting ETN options to trade in a
similar manner to options on ETFs. Strike prices for ETF options are
permitted in $1 or greater intervals where the strike price is $200 or
less and $5 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200.\5\
Accordingly, the Exchange asserts that the rationale for permitting $1
strikes for ETF options equally applies to permitting $1 strikes for
ETN options and that investors will be better served if $1 strike price
intervals are available for ETN options (where the strike price is less
than $200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60872 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 55878 (October 29, 2009) (SR-OCC-2009-14) (approval
order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq further stated that it has analyzed its capacity and
represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price
Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of $1
strikes (where the strike price is less than $200) for ETN options.

Trading Hours for ILS (ETN) Options

    Similar to the trading hours for ETF options, the Exchange proposes
to amend Chapter VI, Section 2(b) to provide that options contracts on
exchange-traded notes including Index-Linked Securities, as defined in
Chapter IV, Section 3(l), may be traded on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m.
each business day.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\6\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed strike price intervals for
options on Index-Linked Securities are consistent with the strike price
intervals currently permitted for options on ETFs. Accordingly, the
proposal should provide consistency and predictability for investors
who may view these products as serving similar investment functions in
the marketplace to ETFs and may provide investors with greater
flexibility in achieving their investment objectives.
    In addition, the Commission notes that Nasdaq has represented that
it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have
the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of $1 strikes for options on
Index-Linked Securities.
    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\8\ for approving the proposal prior to the thirtieth day after
the date of publication of the Notice in the Federal Register. The
Commission notes that it recently approved the same changes to strike
price intervals and trading hours for options on Index-Linked
Securities for another exchange.\9\ The Commission also notes that it
has not received any comments regarding this proposal. The Commission
believes that the proposed changes to strike price intervals and
trading hours for options on Index-Linked Securities do not raise any
novel regulatory issues and accelerating approval of this proposal
should benefit investors by creating consistency and predictability for
investors who may view these products as serving similar investment
functions in the marketplace to ETFs and greater flexibility in
achieving their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61696 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13174 (March 18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2010-035) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9552 Filed 4-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P