[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42518-42521]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95240; File No. SR-BX-2022-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Credits in Equity 7, Section 118(e)

July 11, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 1, 2022, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits,
at Equity 7, Section 118(e), as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/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 operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, Section 118(e), which consists of several
different credits and fees for Retail Orders \3\ and Retail Price
Improvement Orders \4\ under Rule 4780 (Retail Price Improvement
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a Non-Display
Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Rule 4702(b)(6).
    \4\ Retail Price Improving (``RPI'') Orders shall mean an Order
Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule
4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price
increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as
``RPI Interest.'' See Rule 4702(b)(5).

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

    Currently, the Exchange provides certain credits for Retail Orders
that provide liquidity. The Exchange proposes to adopt a new credit of
$0.0010 per share executed for Retail Orders with an accepted price
greater than or equal to $10,000 that accesses liquidity provided by a
Retail Price Improvement Order. The Exchange is also proposing to
adjust the existing credit of $0.0021 per share executed to require the
Retail Order to have an accepted price of less than $10,000. The
Exchange hopes that the proposed new credit will encourage member
organizations to increase liquidity providing activity on RPI Orders on
the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in achieving this purpose,
then the quality of the Exchange's market will improve, particularly
with respect to RPI and retail orders to the benefit of all
participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail Orders.
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 Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable and Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits is
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
It is also only one of several taker-maker exchanges. Competing equity
exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the
Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon
members achieving certain volume thresholds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE BYX Fee Schedule, at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/; NYSE National Fee Schedule,
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/NYSE_National_Schedule_of_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.\10\ Within
the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by
the Exchange to increase its market share relative to its competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange perceives no regulatory, structural, or cost
impediments to market participants shifting order flow away from it.
In particular, the Exchange notes that these examples of shifts in
liquidity and market share, along with many others, have occurred
within the context of market participants' existing duties of Best
Execution and obligations under the Order Protection Rule under
Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to adopt a new
$0.0010 per share executed credit for Retail Orders with an accepted
price greater than or equal to $10,000 that access liquidity provided
by a Retail Price Improvement Order. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that it is reasonable to adjust its existing $0.0021 credit to conform
with its new proposed credit by requiring the Retail order to have an
accepted price less of less than $10,000. As discussed above, the
Exchange's goal is to increase liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders
on its platform. It is reasonable and equitable to address this need by
providing an additional credit to member organizations that meet the
proposed thresholds as an incentive for them to increase their
liquidity activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is
effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's
market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail orders
to the benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and
Retail Orders.
The Proposed Credit Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members that submit RPI and Retail Orders on the Exchange and by
extension attract more liquidity to the market, improving market wide
quality and price discovery. Although net adders of liquidity for RPI
Orders will benefit most from the proposal, this result is fair insofar
as increased liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders will help to
improve market quality and

the attractiveness of the Nasdaq BX market to all existing and
prospective retail participants.

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.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all member organizations of the Exchange will benefit from
any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Member
organizations may modify their businesses so that they can meet the
required thresholds and receive the credits. Moreover, members are free
to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the credits
provided are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any
market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure
is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other
industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its
schedule of credits will not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition from the other live exchanges and from off-
exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems that trade
national market system stock. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own credits in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which credits
change in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
    The proposed credit for adding liquidity is reflective of this
competition because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively
small market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is
limited. In this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by
volume has less than 17-18% market share, which in most markets could
hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprised more than 40% of industry volume in recent months.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed change to its credits
for RPI Orders, in the aggregate, to increase member incentives to
engage in the addition of liquidity on the Exchange. If the additional
credit proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is
likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2022-010 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-BX-2022-010. 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-BX-2022-010 and should be submitted on
or before August 5, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15116 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22270]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08744]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Joint Meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committees: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on June 5 and 6, 2013, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, Building 31, the Great Room, White
Oak Conference Center (rm. 1503), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due
to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed
at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the
heading ``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA
White Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus
must enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO31-2417,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee link, or call the advisory committee information
line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: On June 5 and 6, 2013, the committees will discuss the
results of an independent readjudication of the Rosiglitazone Evaluated
for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes
(RECORD) trial, for new drug application (NDA) 21071, AVANDIA
(rosiglitazone maleate) tablets. Rosiglitazone is a thiazolidinedione,
indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic
control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. AVANDIA is
manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
21, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:15 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on June 6, 2013. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May
13, 2013. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 14, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Minh Doan at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 5, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-08744 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70721-70727]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0710; FRL-9937-09-Region 7]

Approval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); State
of Nebraska; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Regards to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Prongs 1 and 2

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
the State of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone (O3). CAA section 110 requires
that each state adopt and submit a SIP to support implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each

new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly
referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Nebraska's SIP as it
relates to section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, for the 2008
O3 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0710, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Crable, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7391; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?
II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a
SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the
NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such
infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by
states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as ``infrastructure''
SIPs.

II. What are the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (hereafter the 2008 O3 NAAQS) was revised from 0.08
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436).
    For the 2008 O3 NAAQS, states typically have met many of
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through
provisions adopted in earlier SIP submissions in connection with
previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must review and revise, as appropriate, their existing SIPs to ensure
that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 O3 NAAQS. To
assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued
guidance on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance), addressing the
infrastructure SIP elements required to be addressed under section 110
(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 O3 NAAQS.\1\ In a previous final
rulemaking (80 FR 55266, September 15, 2015) EPA addressed elements (A
through C), (D)(i)(II), and (E through M). As discussed in that notice,
EPA planned to take separate action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
prongs 1 and 2 on a timeline consistent with a deadline agreed to by
the parties and entered by the court in Sierra Club v. McCarthy 4:14-
cv-05091-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). In this action, EPA proposes
action that, if finalized, fulfills that commitment to take final
action as to Nebraska's SIP submission addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' Memorandum to EPA
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the February 11, 2013, SIP submission from
Nebraska that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 O3 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking
any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for

infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\2\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\3\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\4\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \4\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\5\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \6\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have

intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\8\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\9\ EPA developed the 2013 Guidance document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within the 2013 guidance, EPA describes the duty
of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\10\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \9\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \10\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by this litigation (which culminated in
the Supreme Court's April 29, 2014 decision at 134 SCt. 1584), EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither
binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR)
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural
PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not
required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely
available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are
types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are

logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this
approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is
appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's
existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations
merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the
basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they
may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These
provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a
significant problem for the purposes of ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy
of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better
approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP
revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other
factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    EPA Region 7 received Nebraska's infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2008 O3 standard on February 11, 2013. The SIP
submission became complete as a matter of law on August 11, 2013. EPA
has reviewed Nebraska's infrastructure SIP submission and the
applicable statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions
referenced in those submissions or referenced in Nebraska's SIP. EPA
has previously approved sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)--
prong 3, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M); did not
propose any action on section 110(a)(2)(I)-- Nonattainment Area Plan or
Plan Revisions under part D; and disapproved 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong
4, as it relates to the protection of visibility (80 FR 55266,
September 15, 2015). EPA also stated that it would take action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2 at a later time (80 FR
35290). A discussion of that action follows.
    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are
four sub-elements (or prongs) within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This
action addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor
provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements
require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of
the applicable air quality standard in any other state. We note that
the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States
in several past regulatory actions.\15\ We most recently promulgated
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.\16\
CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \16\ 76 FR 48208.
    \17\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's

emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether
one percent was appropriate.\18\ The EPA evaluated the comments
received and ultimately determined that one percent was an
appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if
relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and
maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to
commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent,
the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze
the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United
States. The EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold
captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting
downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude
increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a
five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport
affecting downwind receptors would be excluded.\19\ In addition, the
EPA determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-
percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated
with ambient ozone even at low levels.\20\ The EPA also determined that
a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest
increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and
ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at
the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent
threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in
additional states that individually have a very small impact on those
receptors--an indicator that emission controls in those states are
likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor.
We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is
necessary or desirable.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \19\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID
#EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
    \20\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\22\ The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR,
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\24\ The moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA
used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United
States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the
supporting technical support documents have been included in the docket
for this SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of
the Environmental protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the
most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For
purposes of evaluating Nebraska's interstate transport SIP with respect
to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states
whose contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors are considered non-significant. The modeling
indicates that Nebraska's largest contribution to any projected
downwind nonattainment site is 0.51 ppb and Nebraska's largest
contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.36
ppb. 80 FR 46271.\25\ These values are below the one percent screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages
between Nebraska and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites. Note that the EPA has not done an assessment to
determine the applicability for the use of the one percent screening
threshold for western states that contribute above the one percent
threshold. There may be additional considerations that may impact
regulatory decisions regarding ``potential'' linkages in the West
identified by the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Largest Ozone Contributions From Each State to Downwind
2017 Projected Nonattainment and to 2017 Projected Maintenance-only
sites, specific to the state of Nebraska are found in Table 3 at 80
FR 46277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Nebraska submitted a SIP on February 11, 2013. The SIP
states that Nebraska does not contribute significantly to nonattainment
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regards to
the 2008 O3 NAAQS. To support this conclusion, Nebraska
cited modeling that EPA conducted for purposes of evaluating upwind
contributions to downwind air quality in the CSAPR rulemaking. See 76
FR 48244 (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals; Final
Rule). Nebraska noted EPA's statement in that action, that states
``which

contribute 0.8 ppb or more to 8-hour ozone nonattainment or maintenance
in another state are identified as states with contributions to
downwind attainment and maintenance sites large enough to warrant
further analysis.'' Nebraska noted that 0.8 ppb cutoff equates to a one
percent threshold, which was the threshold EPA used in that rulemaking
for the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to Nebraska, the rule
stands for the proposition that ``states whose contributions are below
these thresholds do not significantly contribute or interfere with
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.'' Nebraska noted that, pursuant to
the modeling discussed in that rule (76 FR 48245), Nebraska's largest
downwind contribution to any identified nonattainment or maintenance
receptors for ozone was 0.2 ppb. Nebraska concluded that because this
modeling contribution represents far less than one percent of the 2008
ozone NAAQS at issue here, it ``does not have any obligations'' to
reduce emissions to address interstate transport as to that standard.
    The EPA notes that the modeling Nebraska relies upon was conducted
by EPA in 2011, for purposes of evaluating upwind state contributions
and downwind air quality problems as to a prior, less-stringent ozone
NAAQS, and that the modeling evaluated a 2012 compliance year.
Accordingly, the fact that this modeling showed downwind contribution
less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not necessarily
dispositive of Nebraska's obligations under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\26\ However, as discussed above, the EPA has
conducted more updated modeling subsequent to the state's SIP
submission that confirms the underlying conclusion of our 2011
modeling, and of Nebraska's SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Nebraska's SIP submission appears to rely on EPA's 2011 air
quality modeling because at that time, the D.C. Circuit's decision
in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA held that EPA must first
quantify each state's transport obligation before states had an
obligation to make a SIP submission. See 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012). Accordingly, Nebraska cites a November 19, 2012, memorandum
from Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, which describes the D.C.
Circuit's holding that ``a SIP cannot be deemed deficient for
failing to meet the good neighbor obligation before the EPA
quantifies that obligation.'' See Memo at 2, available at http://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CSAPR_Memo_to_Regions.pdf. The
memorandum also communicated the Agency's intentions to ``act in
accordance with the [D.C. Circuit] decision during the pendency of
the appeal,'' id., but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed that
holding. See EPA v. EME Homer City Gen., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1609-10
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the modeling data and the information and analysis
provided in Nebraska's SIP, EPA is proposing to approve Nebraska's
interstate transport SIP for purposes of meeting the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements as to the 2008 ozone standard. The
EPA's modeling confirms the results of the State's analysis: Nebraska
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state.

V. What action is EPA proposing?

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2008 O3 NAAQS, with respect to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2, and relevant statutory and
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in these submissions
or referenced in Nebraska's SIP, EPA is proposing to approve this
element of the February 11, 2013 SIP submission.
    We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where 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).

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 2, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2015-28908 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 71873-71874]
[DOCID:fr30no05-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52825; File No. SR-NASD-2005-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify NASD Rule 7010 To Change the Fee Structure for
the ``Browse/Query'' Function in the Trade Reporting Service of the
Nasdaq Market Center

November 22, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee or
other charge imposed by Nasdaq under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the fee structure for the ``Browse/
Query'' function in the trade reporting service of the Nasdaq Market
Center.\5\ Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change on November
1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change applies only to NASD member firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NASD's Web
site at http://www.nasd.com, Office of the Secretary, NASD, 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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq customers using the trade reporting service of the Nasdaq
Market Center can view a summary of their trade reporting activity by
using the ``Browse/Query'' function of the Nasdaq Workstation.\6\ The
legacy ``Browse/Query'' function would only display 18 records per
request. In order to view the next 18 records, Nasdaq customers would
have to use the ``More'' function.

Nasdaq currently charges customers $.288 per initial request and per
each subsequent use of the ``More'' function. Thus, Nasdaq customers
would incur additional incremental costs as they increased their trade
reporting activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ``Browse/Query'' function is also provided in Nasdaq
Workstation II (NWII) and application protocol interface (API)
services. NWII and API services, however, will be retired as of
November 30, 2005 and December 31, 2005 respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has implemented new technology that modifies the ``Browse/
Query'' function. The modified ``Browse/Query'' function has been
renamed the ``Query'' function and each ``Query'' request now provides
a complete summary of all trade reporting activity per request. Nasdaq
customers no longer have to use the ``More'' function to view the next
18 records. Under the proposed rule change, users of the new ``Query''
function will be charged $.50 per request.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable fees, dues, and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the NASD operates or controls. Further, Nasdaq believes
that the proposed fee structure for the new ``Query'' function is
reasonable because the new ``Query'' function provides more information
per request than the old ``Browse/Query'' function. Nasdaq believes the
new fee structure is also equitable because it applies to all users of
the ``Query'' function on an equal basis. Although the fee for the new
``Query'' function is more than the fee for the old ``Browse/Query''
function, Nasdaq believes its customers will benefit from an overall
reduction in their costs because they will not incur additional
incremental charges to view all of their trade reporting activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any inappropriate burden on competition.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become immediately effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\10\ in that it establishes or changes
a due, fee or other charge imposed by Nasdaq. At any time within 60
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASD-2005-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-127. 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 Section. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2005-127 and should be submitted on or before December 21,
2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23495 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79888-79889]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32326]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0386; FRL-9940-09]

Pesticide Registration Review; Draft Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessments for Certain Organophosphates; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of September 25,
2015, opening a comment period on draft human health and ecological
risk assessments for certain organophosphate pesticides listed in Table
1, along with additional chemicals. Following this, EPA issued a notice
in the Federal Register of November 20, 2015, extending the comment
period for an additional 45 days, until January 8, 2016. This document
extends the close of the comment period for an additional 45 days for
only the chemicals listed in Table 1, from January 8, 2016 to February
23, 2016. This comment period is being extended in response to comments
received by the Agency. The Agency is also taking comments on the
document entitled, ``Literature Review on Neurodevelopment Effects &
FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides''
in conjunction with this comment period and not through a separate
comment period.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) numbers
identified in Table 1 must be received on or before February 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57812) (FRL-
9933-68).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons listed with individual
chemicals in Table 1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This document extends the public comment period for certain
chemicals established in the Federal Register document of September 25,
2015 (80 FR 57812) (FRL-9933-68). In that document, a public comment
period opened on EPA's draft human health and ecological risk
assessments for the registration review of certain members of a group
of pesticides known collectively as organophosphates (found in Table 1)
and the document entitled, ``Literature Review on Neurodevelopment
effects; FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate
Pesticides,'' and a number of other chemicals. Following this, EPA
issued a Notice in the Federal Register of November 20, 2015 (80 FR
72717) (FRL-9936-94), extending the comment period for an additional 45
days, until January 8, 2016. EPA is hereby further extending the
comment period for only the chemicals, and their associated support
documents, found in Table 1, which was set to end on January 8, 2016,
to February 23, 2016.

            Table 1--Chemicals With Extended Comment Periods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical review
  Registration review case name                           manager and
             and No.                 Docket ID No.          contact
                                                          information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 8011........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-01  Dana L. Friedman,
                                   19<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                       8827.
Dicrotophos Case 0145...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-04  Khue Nguyen,
                                   40<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                       0248.
Dimethoate 0088.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-00  Kelly Ballard,
                                   59<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 305-
                                                       8126.
Ethoprop 0106...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-05  Tracy Perry,
                                   60<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 308-
                                                       0128.
Profenofos 2540.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-03  Christina
                                   45.                 Scheltema,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                       308-2201.
Terbufos 0109...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-01  Matthew Manupella,
                                   19<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                       347-0411.
Tribufos 2145...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-08  Marianne Mannix,
                                   83<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                       0275.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of September 25, 2015. If you have questions on individual
chemicals, consult the person listed in Table 1.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 16, 2015.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-32326 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P