[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39959-39962]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16308]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887; FRL-9696-1]
RIN 2060-AN40

Draft Guidance To Implement Requirements for the Treatment of Air
Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its draft non-
binding guidance titled, Draft Guidance to Implement Requirements for
the Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional
Events and associated attachments, on the agency's Internet Web site.
The EPA invites public comments on this guidance document and plans to
issue an updated version of the guidance after reviewing timely
submitted comments. The EPA intends to hold a conference call to
provide interested stakeholders with an overview of the Exceptional
Events draft guidance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2012. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the
comment period.

ADDRESSES: Access to the draft guidance: Please see the EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm for additional details
on the draft non-binding guidance titled, Draft Guidance to Implement
Requirements for the Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data
Influenced by Exceptional Events and associated attachments and the
conference call for interested stakeholders.
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0887, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0887.
     Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0887, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0887. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0887. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA is unable to read your comment and cannot
contact you for clarification due to technical difficulties, the EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth W. Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify this notice by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number in the guidance.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The purpose of this document is to solicit public comments on the
EPA's recently posted draft non-binding guidance on the implementation
of the March 22, 2007, Exceptional Events Rule (72 FR at 13560). These
documents are available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm or within the associated docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0887.
    The draft guidance consists of an overview document, titled Draft
Guidance to Implement Requirements for the Treatment of Air Quality
Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events and its attachments:
Attachment 1, Draft Exceptional Events Rule Frequently Asked Questions;
Attachment 2, Draft Guidance on the Preparation of Demonstrations in
Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient Air Quality Data Affected by
High Winds under the Exceptional Events Rule (High Winds Guidance
Document); and Attachment 3, Request for Comments on the Draft Guidance
Documents on the Implementation of the Exceptional Events Rule.
Together, these documents clarify key provisions and respond to
questions and issues that have arisen since the EPA promulgated the
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events; Final Rule (72 FR
at 13560), known as the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), pursuant to the
2005 amendment of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 319.
    The EPA provided previous versions of these draft guidance
documents to state, local, and tribal agencies, and to other parties as
requested, in May of 2011 to solicit preliminary comments. The EPA has
prepared the document Responses to Significant First-Round Comments on
the Draft Guidance Documents on the Implementation of the Exceptional
Events Rule (the Response to Comments document), to track these
preliminary comments and the EPA's responses.
    During this preliminary review period, the EPA received numerous
comments, some of which the EPA has incorporated into the revised draft
guidance documents. For example, the EPA has added an optional
prospective controls analysis process and revised the discussion of the
optional High Wind Action Plan; both of these are voluntary analyses
that can facilitate agreement between states/local agencies/tribes and
the EPA as to what measures constitute ``reasonable'' controls in
advance of an actual event. Once the plans have gone through a notice
and comment process at the state/local/tribal level and the EPA has
approved these plans, the EPA generally anticipates that they will be
effective for three years. Both of these approaches are described in
more detail in the revised, draft High Winds Guidance document. The EPA
solicits feedback on the anticipated use and functionality of these
plans. Initial commenter feedback also asked the EPA to identify
timelines for steps in the exceptional event submittal and review
process. In the draft guidance documents, the EPA identifies suggested
review and response timeframes, and indicates willingness to work with
agencies on these timeframes to the extent the mandatory timing of the
EPA regulatory actions allows.
    The EPA has also begun applying the principles in the draft
guidance documents as we receive exceptional event submittal packages.
For example, the EPA's Region 9 office worked with agencies in Arizona
to incorporate approaches presented in the draft guidance documents
into a consolidated exceptional events demonstration package that
addresses numerous exceedances of the PM10 standard. The EPA
hopes that, once finalized, much of the information included in this
streamlined exceptional events demonstration submittal could be
transferable and serve as a model for future events for both Arizona
and other areas experiencing high wind dust events.
    While the EPA incorporated some comments into the revised draft
guidance documents, the EPA did not incorporate all aspects of
commenter feedback. For example, multiple commenters suggested that
Exceptional Events Rule revisions are the appropriate mechanism to
implement some of the approaches described in the guidance documents.
The EPA maintains that guidance documents do not change, increase, or
decrease rule requirements; they assist by providing information and
illustrations for better understanding of and compliance with the rule.
The EPA is deferring a decision on whether to revise the Exceptional
Events Rule.
    Initial feedback on the draft guidance documents also raised the
following questions on which the EPA is specifically seeking comment:
     The EPA has developed draft exceptional event
implementation guidance with the goal of establishing clear
expectations to enable affected agencies to better manage resources as
they prepare the documentation required under the EER. These draft

guidance documents identify mechanisms (e.g., demonstration
prioritization, review time lines, High Wind Action Plans) to
streamline the demonstration development, submittal, and review
process. The EPA seeks comment regarding other specific, broadly
applicable, streamlining mechanisms that the EPA could incorporate into
the exceptional event implementation process.
     The EPA has modified the exceptional events Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm to include additional
links to tools, such as the DataFed Web site, that submitting agencies
may use in the development of their demonstration submittals. The EPA
has also posted exceptional event demonstrations that have already been
reviewed and acted upon by the EPA. The EPA solicits feedback regarding
other web-based information, links, tools, or methodologies that we can
similarly post on our Web site.
     In the draft exceptional events guidance documents, the
EPA defines the high wind threshold as the minimum threshold wind speed
capable of overwhelming reasonable controls on anthropogenic sources
(i.e., capable of causing significant dust emissions from controlled
sources) or causing emissions from natural undisturbed areas. The EPA
further notes that this area-specific threshold, along with the
submitter's analysis of implemented reasonable controls and other
factors, helps inform the analysis of the ``not reasonably controllable
or preventable'' criterion. The EPA intends to allow air agencies to
use wind data from a multitude of sources in the development of high
wind thresholds. The EPA has identified several sources of local wind
speed data including the National Weather Service, the National Climate
Center, and local air monitoring stations. In addition, air agencies
may use models such as Fifth Generation Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Mode (MM5), Weather
Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) and North American Mesoscale Model
(NAM), to develop local wind speed data. The EPA solicits feedback on
additional available sources of wind data and their applicability in
informing local high wind analyses.
     As previously mentioned, demonstrations for high wind dust
events necessarily include wind speed analyses. Generally, the EPA will
accept that high winds could be the cause of a high 24-hour average
PM10 or PM2.5 concentration if there was at least
one full hour in which the hourly average wind speed was above area-
specific high wind threshold. Potential issues arise when determining
the hourly average wind speed if wind speeds are not recorded at
specified intervals throughout each hour. While some sources of wind
speed data use hourly averages, other data sources employ 1-5 minute
(``short-period'') averages. When the available wind speed data consist
of only the wind speed during a fixed short period of each hour (e.g.,
the first or last 5 minutes of each hour) or the wind speed during the
variable short period when wind speed was at its maximum during the
hour, the EPA will generally accept that the hourly average wind speed
was above the threshold if the reported short-period wind speed was
above the threshold. Where wind speed is recorded at specified
intervals throughout each hour, agencies should use all recorded data
to calculate the hourly average wind speed. AERMINUTE, a preprocessor
to AERMOD that takes short-period wind speed observations and
calculates an hourly average wind, can assist in this calculation.
AERMINUTE data, or other sub-hourly data with a resolution equal or
greater than 5 minutes, can be fed into AERMET, the AERMOD
meteorological processor, to get a user-friendly output. The EPA
solicits additional feedback and tools to convert 1-5 minute wind speed
data to hourly averages.
     Within the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), monitoring
agencies can use two types of data validation, or data qualifier,
codes: the Request Exclusion flags (R) and the Informational Only flags
(I). Agencies should use the I series flags when identifying
informational data and the R series flags to identify data points for
which the agency intends to request an exceptional event exclusion and
the EPA's concurrence. Given that the EPA can act/concur only on R
flags, some agencies have questioned the utility of I flags. Do AQS
users find I flags in AQS useful? If so, how do users employ these
flags?
     In response to comments received and in an effort to
streamline the development of high wind demonstrations, the EPA has
added an optional ``Prospective Controls Analysis'' process by which
states, local agencies, and tribes can voluntarily provide information
on attainment status, identify natural and anthropogenic windblown dust
sources and emissions, provide the status of SIP submittals (if
applicable), and identify the wind speed up to which the collective
windblown dust controls are expected to be effective. This optional
analysis can facilitate agreement between states/local agencies/tribes
and the EPA as to what constitutes ``reasonable'' controls in advance
of an actual event. The EPA has also added an optional ``High Wind
Action Plan'' that states/local agencies/tribes can use to document
current in-place controls, document controls on new sources that need
reasonable controls for future events, and/or document current and/or
planned mitigation measures. Both of these approaches are described in
more detail in the revised draft High Winds Guidance document. The EPA
anticipates that air agencies would submit the prospective controls
analysis in advance of or with a demonstration package and similarly
expects that air agencies would submit the High Wind Action Plan
following the EPA's initial review of a demonstration package. The EPA
recognizes that the information contained in the prospective controls
analysis and the High Wind Action Plan is likely to overlap. The EPA
solicits feedback on the anticipated use and functionality of these
plans. Specifically, the EPA requests that commenters identify: (1)
Specific elements in the prospective controls analysis and High Wind
Action Plan that are useful, (2) whether these concepts should be
combined or kept separate and (3) whether the flexibility to implement
needed dust controls provided by the High Wind Action Plan as a
voluntary alternative to the traditional regulatory nonattainment
designation process is helpful.
     In Table 3 of the revised draft High Winds Guidance
document, the EPA identifies example technical analyses that air
agencies should consider when preparing their high wind dust event
controls analysis to demonstrate the not reasonably controllable or
preventable criterion. The EPA solicits comment on the identified
analyses and any additional technical analyses that air agencies could
use to demonstrate that the wind exceeded an identified high wind
threshold and that the exceedance was caused by emissions that were not
reasonably controllable.
     The EPA acknowledges that certain extreme exceptional
event cases may require more limited demonstration packages. Whether a
particular event should be considered ``extreme'' for this purpose
depends on the type and severity of the event, pollutant concentration,
spatial extent, temporal extent, and proximity of the event to the
violating monitor. Several meteorological phenomena that could be
considered extreme events include hurricanes, tornadoes, haboobs, and
catastrophic volcanic eruptions. The EPA addresses ``extreme'' high
wind dust events in the draft Q&A document,

but solicits comment on whether and how specific events of various
types should be considered to be ``extreme.''
    With this document, the EPA is announcing the availability of
revised draft guidance, along with examples of approved demonstrations
on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm.
The EPA is providing the draft guidance to facilitate review of these
materials by outside parties and to help ensure that the EPA's final
guidance provides an efficient and effective process to make
determinations regarding air quality data affected by events. The EPA
notes that these draft guidance documents and the exceptional events
Web site present examples to illustrate specific points. The example
analyses and level of rigor are not necessarily required for all
demonstrations.
    After receiving timely submitted public comments on the draft
guidance, the EPA plans to issue updated non-binding guidance. In
addition, the EPA will continue to work closely with state, local, and
tribal agencies to address issues arising during the development and
submittal of exceptional event demonstration packages. The EPA is
deferring a decision on whether to revise the Exceptional Events Rule.
    The EPA invites public comment on all aspects of this draft
guidance during the 60-day comment period. The draft guidance is not a
regulation or any other kind of final action and does not establish
binding requirements on the EPA or any state, local, or tribal agency
or any emissions source. While the EPA has established a docket and is
requesting public comment on the draft guidance, this procedure does
not alter the nature or effect of the draft guidance and does not
constitute a formal rulemaking process or require the EPA to respond to
public comments in the updated guidance before the EPA or other
agencies may use the guidance in reaching decisions making related
exceptional event demonstration submittals. The EPA retains the
discretion to revise its guidance, issue additional guidance, propose
regulations as appropriate, and to use information submitted in public
comments to inform future decisions. Because this draft guidance does
not constitute a formal rulemaking action, the EPA is not required to
respond to comments, but intends to consider significant comments in
amending or updating the non-binding guidance. Following the 60-day
comment period and review and incorporation of comments, the EPA
expects to post the revised, final guidance documents at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm.
    Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above in this document for
specific instructions on submitting comments.

III. Internet Web Site for Guidance Information

    Interested parties can find the draft guidance titled, Draft
Guidance Documents on the Implementation of the Exceptional Events
Rule, on the Exceptional Events Web site for this rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm. The Web site includes examples
of reviewed exceptional event submissions, best practices components,
and links to publicly available support information and tools that the
public may find useful.

    Dated: June 26, 2012.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-16308 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28219-28220]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2413-115]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project No: 2413-115.
    c. Date Filed: March 2, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Wallace Pumped Storage Project.
    f. Location: Lake Oconee in Greene County, Georgia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Susan Davis, Georgia Power Company, 125
Wallace Dam Road, Eatonton, GA 31024.

    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 9, 2011.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. Please include the
project number (P-2413-115) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: Georgia Power Company requests
Commission approval to grant Reynolds Plantation (permittee) a permit
to use project lands for the construction of Dye golf course on Lake
Oconee. The golf course would occupy 2.25 acres of project lands along
3,890 feet of shoreline, would consist of 6,907 square feet of
boardwalk and bridge and 664 square feet of rough, and would require 1
acre of tree clearing and 1.08 acres of selective tree thinning.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-2413) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: May 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11916 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68771-68772]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27975]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0873; FRL-9369-6]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Pesticide Programs
is

giving notice that a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC) is scheduled for November 29-30, 2012. A draft agenda
is under development and will be posted by November 16, 2012. Three
PPDC workgroup meetings are scheduled to meet on November 28, 2012, as
follows: PPDC Work Group on Integrated Pest Management; PPDC Work Group
on Comparative Safety Statements; and PPDC Work Group on Pollinator
Protection. The PPDC Work Group on 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated
Testing Strategies will meet on November 29, 2012. All meetings are
free, open to the public, and no advance registration is required.

DATES: The PPDC meeting will be held on Thursday, November 29, 2012,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, November 30, 2012, from 9 a.m. to
noon. On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, PPDC work group meetings are
scheduled as follows: Integrated Pest Management from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.;
Comparative Safety Statements from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and Pollinator
Protection from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and on Thursday, November 29, 2012,
the PPDC Work Group on 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing
Strategies will meet from noon to 1:15 p.m. in N-4850-70 Potomac Yards
North. Information regarding PPDC Work Groups is available on EPA's Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The PPDC and Work Group meetings will be held at EPA's
location at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
The PPDC meeting will be held in the lobby-level Conference Center. The
PPDC Work Group on Pollinator Protection will meet on November 28,
2012, in the lobby-level Conference Center. The PPDC Work Group on
Integrated Pest Management will meet on November 28, 2012, in room S-
4850-70 Potomac Yards South. The PPDC Work Group on Comparative Safety
Statements will meet on November 28, 2012, in S-4370-80 Potomac Yards
South. On November 29, 2012, the PPDC Work Group on 21st Century
Toxicology/Integrated Testing Strategies will meet in N-4850-70 Potomac
Yards North. EPA's Potomac Yard South building is approximately one
mile from the Crystal City Metro Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these
major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996;
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and
farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental,
consumer, and farm worker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal
rights groups; pest consultants; State, local, and tribal governments;
academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0873, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply,
the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply
or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products,
and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from
potential risks posed by pesticides.
    The Charter for EPA's PPDC was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995,
and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. PPDC's Charter was
renewed October 28, 2011, for another 2-year period. The purpose of
PPDC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform
initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues,
and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from
use of pesticides. It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by
law. The following sectors are represented on the current PPDC:
Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker
organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide
user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/tribal
governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations.
    Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of
Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a
first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to
register in advance of the meeting. Comments may be made during the
public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the address
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture,
Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Integrated pest management,
Pesticide labels, Pesticides and pests, Public health, Spray drift,
21st Century toxicology.

    Dated: November 9, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-27975 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9435-9438]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04424]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479; FRL-9975-00--Region 3]

Air Quality Plans; Pennsylvania; Lebanon County 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard Determination of Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a final
determination that the Lebanon County, Pennsylvania nonattainment area
(the Lebanon County Area) has attained the 2012 annual fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). This determination of attainment, also known as a clean data
determination, is based on quality assured and certified ambient air
quality data for the 2014-2016 monitoring period. The effect of this
determination of attainment suspends certain planning requirements for
the area, including the requirement to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency
measures. These requirements would be suspended for as long as the area
continues to meet the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action
is not a redesignation to attainment for the area. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://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
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 2, 2017 (82 FR 50851), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Lebanon County Area. In the NPR, EPA
proposed to determine that the Lebanon County Area attained the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Under EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy,\1\ which was codified
in EPA's Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007), EPA may issue a determination of attainment after
notice and comment rulemaking determining that a specific area is
attaining the relevant standard. See 40 CFR 51.1004. The effect of a
clean data determination is to suspend the requirement for the area to
submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP plan, contingency
measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
related to attainment for as long as the area continues to attain the
standard. In EPA's Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements final rule (81 FR
58010, August 24, 2016), EPA reaffirmed the Clean Data Policy at 40 CFR
51.1015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient
Air Quality Standards,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, December
14, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation

    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, section 50.18 and appendix
N, the annual primary PM2.5 standard is met when the 3-year
average of PM2.5 annual mean mass concentrations for each
eligible monitoring site is less than or equal to 12.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). Three years of valid annual means are
required to produce a valid annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value.
    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, section 50.18
and appendix N, EPA determined the Lebanon County Area has attained the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The certified annual design value
for 2014-2016 is 11.2 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the 2012 annual
primary PM2.5 standard of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The specific requirements of this determination of attainment and
the rationale for EPA's proposed action, including how the annual
design value for 2014-2016 was calculated, are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here. EPA received comments that are addressed in
Section III of this rulemaking action.

III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received adverse comments from one commenter, the Clean Air
Council (hereinafter referred to as the ``Commenter''). The Commenter
expressed concern about EPA's calculations performed for this
determination of attainment. The Commenter states, ``EPA should perform
its calculations again and provide explanations for its conclusions,
which were not substantiated by the background documents in the
rulemaking docket.'' EPA provided its explanations and support for the
determination of attainment in the NPR and explained the certified
annual design value for 2014-2016 is 11.2 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below
the 2012 annual primary PM2.5 standard of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
The Commenter's specific concerns are summarized and addressed in this
section.
    Comment 1: For the 2015 annual mean, the Commenter confirmed the
annual mean calculation from EPA but had comments regarding data from
the second quarter of 2015. The Commenter noted there was only
monitored data for 64 of the 91 days in the quarter which led EPA to
conduct a ``data completeness test.'' The Commenter states that ``EPA
substituted 30.5 micrograms per cubic meter for each of the 27 days of
missing data, based on the premise that this figure was the highest
daily average in the second quarters of 2014, 2015, and 2016'' and
stated that this figure was the daily average for June 11, 2015, during
the second quarter of 2015. The Commenter states that EPA does not
acknowledge that there was actually a higher daily value of 34 [mu]g/
m\3\ on May 11, 2016, during the second quarter of 2016 based on data
Commenter obtained from an EPA website.\2\ The Commenter states that it
is possible that EPA excluded this figure under the rationale that
there was an ``extraordinary event.'' The Commenter also notes there
was additional monitored data available related to Parameter Occurrence
Code 3 (POC 3) from the EPA website for the second quarter of 2015
which EPA did not consider in supporting the determination of
attainment. The Commenter notes the design value

would still be lower than the NAAQS but notes EPA should provide a
legal and technical explanation and should perform the calculations
again based on the correct data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/download-daily-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 1: In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section
3.0(d)(1), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) installed a PM2.5 monitor with federal reference
method (FRM) code 145, parameter occurrence code 1 (POC 1) at the
Lebanon County site (Site ID 42-075-0100) and designated this monitor
as the primary monitor in January 2016.\3\ PADEP also has a collocated
monitor with federal equivalent method (FEM) code 170, parameter
occurrence code 3 (POC 3). 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section
3.0(d)(1), states: ``The default dataset for PM2.5 mass
concentrations for a site shall consist of the measured concentrations
recorded from the designated primary monitor(s). All daily values
produced by the primary monitor are considered part of the site record;
this includes all creditable samples and all extra samples.''
Additionally 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 3.2.3 states: ``For
each pair of collocated monitors, designate one sampler as the primary
monitor whose concentrations will be used to report air quality for the
site, and designate the other as the quality control monitor. There can
be only one primary monitor at a monitoring site for a given time
period.'' As previously mentioned on January 1, 2016, PADEP designated
POC 1 as the primary monitor. Therefore, after January 1, 2016, on days
where the primary monitor POC 1 produces a daily value, it is
considered part of the site record and not the data from collocated
monitor POC 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479-0016. Page 2 of the
``Air Quality System (AQS) Monitor Description Report,'' notes POC
1's official start date as January 1, 2016. Therefore, EPA will be
referencing the January 1, 2016 date. PADEP's 2016 Annual Ambient
Air Monitoring Network Plan notes the start date as January 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(2), states
that, ``Data for the primary monitors shall be augmented as much as
possible with data from collocated monitors. If a valid daily value is
not produced by the primary monitor for a particular day (scheduled or
otherwise), but a value is available from a collocated monitor, then
that collocated value shall be considered part of the combined site
data record (emphasis added). If more than one collocated daily value
is available, the average of those valid collocated values shall be
used as the daily value. The data record resulting from this procedure
is referred to as the `combined site data record.' ''
    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(2), the data
from collocated monitor POC 3 is only considered as part of the
combined site data record (to be used in determining design value for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) when there is no valid daily
value from the primary monitor POC 1. For the data substitution test
\4\ performed by EPA in the second quarter of 2015 due to missing data
values, EPA used the highest daily site record for the second quarter
substitution value. 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1(c) defines
the value used for the maximum data substitution test and provides
``[t]he maximum quarterly value data substitution test substitutes
actual `high' reported daily PM2.5 values from the same site
(specifically, the highest reported non-excluded quarterly value(s)
(year non-specific) contained in the combined site record for the
evaluated 3-year period) for missing daily values.'' The daily site
record included data from POC 1 and POC 3 depending on which monitor
was primary and which monitor had valid data between April 1 and June
30 in 2014, 2015, and 2016, i.e. the second quarters of 2014, 2015, and
2016. EPA determined that the highest daily site record for the second
quarter substitution value was 30.5 [mu]g/m\3\ recorded on June 11,
2015 from POC 1. The higher daily value of 34 [mu]g/m\3\ was recorded
on May 11, 2016 by the collocated monitor, POC 3. However, because POC
1 produced a valid daily value of 29.1 [mu]g/m\3\ on this same day, May
11, 2016, the data value from POC 3 was not used in the data
substitution test as the highest daily site record and therefore the
daily value of 30.5 [mu]g/m\3\ recorded on June 11, 2015 was the
highest daily site record for the second quarter between 2014-2016.
EPA's use of 30.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in the data substitution test for 2015 was
therefore correct and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50 appendix N, and
no calculations need to be redone for the 2015 annual mean. EPA notes
that we did not exclude this data (the 34 [mu]g/m\3\ recorded on May
11, 2016 by the collocated monitor, POC 3) in our data substitution
analysis due to any ``exceptional event,'' as we did not use this data
because data from the primary monitor POC 1 was available on that same
day. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA notes that ``data substitution test'' is defined in 40
CFR part 50, appendix N as ``diagnostic evaluations performed on an
annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value (DV) or a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS DV to determine if those metrics, which are
judged to be based on incomplete data in accordance with 4.1(b) or
4.2(b) of this appendix shall nevertheless be deemed valid for NAAQS
comparisons, or alternatively, shall still be considered incomplete
and not valid for NAAQS comparisons. There are two data substitution
tests, the `minimum quarterly value' test and the `maximum quarterly
value' test. Design values (DVs) are the 3-year average NAAQS
metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to determine when a
monitoring site meets or does not meet the NAAQS, calculated as
shown in section 4.'' In the NPR, EPA discussed its application of
the data substitution test using the maximum quarterly value test.
Appendix N provides that the ``maximum quarterly value data
substitution test'' substitutes actual ``high'' reported daily
PM2.5 values from the same site (specifically, the
highest reported non-excluded quarterly value(s) (year non-specific)
contained in the combined site record for the evaluated 3-year
period) for missing daily values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: For the 2016 annual mean, the Commenter states that it
is unclear which monitor is intended to be the primary monitor. The
Commenter claims that the 2016 annual mean should be 12.22 [mu]g/m\3\
instead of EPA's calculated mean of 9.72 [mu]g/m\3\ and states it was
unclear how EPA calculated its annual mean for 2016. Therefore, based
on the Commenter's calculations, the annual design value for 2014-2016
should be 12.03 [mu]g/m\3\ using the higher annual mean for 2016
calculated by the Commenter. The Commenter claims the difference is
material because the analysis leads to a determination that Lebanon
County is still not attaining the standard of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Additionally, the Commenter requests that if EPA ``has relied primarily
on data from POC 1, to the exclusion of data from POC 3, it should
provide an explanation of the legal and technical authority for doing
so.'' The Commenter notes data from POC 1 was generally lower than data
from POC 3 when both monitors were operating on the same dates.
    Response 2: As discussed in Response 1, POC 1 became the designated
primary monitor as of January 2016. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 3.0(d)(1) and (2) and Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0479-0016.
When calculating the 2016 annual mean, EPA used the data from primary
monitor POC 1 and substituted any missing days from the primary monitor
with data from collocated monitor POC 3. Id. This resulted in 2016
quarterly means of 12.18, 8.70, 8.62, 9.37 [mu]g/m\3\ and an annual
mean of 9.72 [mu]g/m\3\, and not 12.22 [mu]g/m\3\, which Commenter
calculated by inappropriately combining data from POC 1 and POC 3. POC
1 is the primary monitor and thus the primary source of data for
determining the mean unless data is missing. Id. Thus, EPA correctly
calculated the 2016 annual mean and the 2014-16 design value as
explained in the NPR. While EPA disagrees with

the Commenter's analysis as stated above, EPA notes that the
Commenter's calculated design value of 12.03 [mu]g/m\3\ (even if
correct) would still demonstrate an attaining design value for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section
4.3(a) states, ``[a]nnual PM2.5 NAAQS DVs (design values)
shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a [micro]g/m\3\ (decimals x.x5
and greater are rounded up to the next tenth, and any decimal lower
than x.x5 is rounded down to the nearest tenth).'' Therefore, based on
the rounding conventions established at 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 4.3(a), 12.03 [mu]g/m\3\ would round to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and
still meet the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that an EPA guidance document
contemplates supplementing data from a primary monitor with data from a
secondary monitor. See AQS Tech Note POC 6-28-13, Technical Note--
Guidance on the Use of Parameter Occurrence Codes (POCs) When Using
Multiple Instruments at Monitoring Sites, https://www.epa.gov/aqs/aqs-tech-note-poc-6-28-13 (``The regulatory language for particulate matter
(PM) and lead (Pb) monitoring allows for the combining of data when the
primary monitor at the site does not sample on a particular day either
due to it not being a scheduled sampling day or the instrument did not
collect a valid sample.'').
    Response 3: ``AQS (Air Quality System) Tech Note POC 6-28-13'' is a
technical memo from EPA to states, local, tribal, and other data users
who use the Air Quality System\5\ (AQS) to submit and retrieve air
quality data. The memo explains that each individual monitor should be
reported to AQS under a specific POC even if the data from these
monitors is going to routinely be combined as the site record.
Reporting data this way allows data users to properly assess the
quality of data from a specific monitor while providing the proper
sample completeness at a monitoring site. The memo goes further to
explain that in 2008, AQS was enhanced to automatically combine
PM2.5 values from collocated data in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix N. As described in Response 1, EPA does allow the
data from a collocated monitor to be considered as part of the combined
site data record when there is no valid daily value from the primary
monitor. EPA thus correctly considered data from the collocated monitor
in Lebanon County when appropriate in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AQS is EPA's repository of ambient air quality data. AQS
stores data from over 10,000 monitors, 5,000 of which are currently
active. See https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The Commenter states that there is a discrepancy for the
third quarter of 2016, as the Commenter found 92 data samples instead
of 91 data samples using data downloaded from EPA's website.
    Response 4: EPA has reviewed the third quarter data for 2016 and
has determined that on August 10, 2016, neither POC 1 nor POC 3
produced a valid daily value. Therefore, 91 data samples were used in
calculating the third quarter 2016 mean. Thus, no discrepancy or error
exists.
    Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA relied on data from POC 3
exclusively for 2014 and 2015 and excluded data from POC 3 in the face
of lower data from a new POC 1.
    Response 5: As previously discussed in Response 1, POC 1 is the
designated primary monitor as of January 2016 and POC 3 is a collocated
monitor. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d)(1) and (2).
Therefore, the data from primary monitor POC 1 is used as the site
record, but is augmented with data from collocated monitor POC 3
whenever there is missing data from POC 1. In 2016, POC 3 data was used
as the site record 60 days out of the 364 days used to calculate the
2016 annual mean because data from POC 1, the designated primary
monitor, was not available. EPA therefore appropriately used data from
POC 1 when available in 2016 in calculating the annual mean and used
data from POC 3 in 2016 when data from POC 1 was unavailable in
accordance with CAA regulations.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is making a final determination that the Lebanon County Area
has attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As provided in 40
CFR 51.1015, finalization of this determination suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning
SIP requirements related to the attainment of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, so long as this area continues to meet the standard. This
determination of attainment does not constitute a redesignation to
attainment. The Lebanon County Area will remain designated
nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan,
pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This rulemaking action proposes to make a determination of
attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on air quality data
and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this
proposed determination of attainment:
     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 regulatory action because
this action is not significant 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the Lebanon County Area does not include any Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 May 7, 2018. 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 determining that the Lebanon County Area attained the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 15, 2018.
 Cosmo Servidio,
 Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 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 NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (w) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2059   Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (w) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined based on 2014
to 2016 ambient air quality monitoring data, that the Lebanon County,
Pennsylvania moderate nonattainment area has attained the 2012 annual
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) primary national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1015, suspends the requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning state implementation plan revisions related to
attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2018-04424 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 58918-58920]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56639; File No. SR-NASD-2007-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (n/k/a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.);
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Mandated Use of an
Automated Liability Notification System

 October 11, 2007.
    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 May 25, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers
(``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared primarily by the NASD.\3\ 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).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule
change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to
reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member
firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. See
Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007); 72 FR 42190 (Aug. 1,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing to amend Rule 11810(i) to mandate the use of the
automated liability notification system of a registered clearing agency
when issuing liability notices in connection with certain securities
transactions provided both parties to the contract are participants in
a registered clearing agency that has such an automated system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Proposed new rule text is attached to NASD's filing as
Exhibit 1 and can be found at http://www.finra.org/RulesRegulation/RuleFilings/index.htm
.

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

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 NASD 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. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has modified portions of the text of the
summaries prepared by the NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(1) Purpose
    NASD Rule 11810(i) sets forth the procedures that must be followed
when a party is owed securities that have become the subject of a
voluntary corporate action, such as a tender or exchange offer. Under
Rule 11810(i), the owed party delivers a liability notice to the owing
or failing party. The liability notice sets a cut off date for the
delivery of the securities by the owing party and provides notice to
the owing party that the counterparty will be held liable for any
damages caused by its failure to deliver the securities in time for the
owed party to participate in the voluntary corporate action.
    If the owing party delivers the securities in response to the
liability notice, it has met its delivery obligation. If the owing
party fails to deliver the securities in sufficient time for the owed
party to participate in the voluntary corporate action, it will be
liable for any damages that may accrue thereby (i.e., in lieu of
delivering the securities the owing party must deliver proceeds
equivalent to the proceeds that the owed party would have received if
it had been able to participate in the offer). The owed party has the
responsibility to communicate its intentions to the owing party and to
prove, if necessary, that the owing party received the liability
notice.
    Rule 11810(i) currently requires broker-dealers to send liability
notices using ``electronic media having immediate receipt
capabilities.'' Although there is currently no one acceptable means for
sending and tracking liability notices, NASD members have advised that
it is industry practice to send liability notices by fax to the failing
counterparty. Sending liability notices by fax is a manual, paper-
intensive process that is subject to error. For example, the fax may be
directed to the wrong department and not timely received by the correct
department, or sent to the correct department but overlooked by the
responsible person(s). In other cases, the receiver may not notify the
sender that the fax has been received, and the sender must follow up
with another fax or telephone call or both. The financial risk to an
owing firm that misses or incorrectly processes a liability notice
relating to a voluntary corporate action can be considerable, since the
corporate action may involve hundreds of shareholders.
    In response to industry need for a reliable and uniform method of
transmitting liability notices, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'')
developed SMART/Track for Corporate Action Liability Notification
Service (``SMART/Track''). SMART/Track is a web-based system for the
communication of corporate action liability notices that allows DTC
participants and the clearing members of the National Securities
Clearing Corporation to create, send, process and tract such
notices.\6\ Transmitting liability notices through SMART/Track
eliminates paper liability notices and provides firms with an
electronic, centralized system for the distribution, management and
control of liability notices and helps reduce the risks, costs, and
delays resulting from missing or inaccurate information associated with
paper corporate action liability notices. Specifically, SMART/Track
provides participants with (1) more timely receipt and distribution of
corporation action liability notifications; (2) a centralized system to
manage and control all liability notifications on all issues; (3)
immediate identification of the security affected by a corporate action
liability notification; (4) detailed disclosure and clearer explanation
of the terms and conditions of the corporate action; and (5) an audit
trail with a complete record of actions taken regarding a liability
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently DTC is the only registered clearing agency
operating an automated corporate liability notification service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, NASD Rule 11810(i) will mandate the use of the
automated liability notification system of a registered clearing agency
when the parties to a contract are both participants in a registered
clearing agency that has an automated service for corporate action
liability notices. When either or both parties to a contract are not
participants in a registered clearing agency that has an automated
service for corporate action liability notices, Rule 11810(i) will
continue to require the liability notice to be issued using written or
comparable electronic media having immediate receipt capabilities.
    NASD proposes to announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a ``Notice to Members'' that will be published no later than
sixty days following the date of approval of the proposed rule change
by the Commission. The NASD anticipates that the effective date of the
proposed rule change will be thirty days following publication of the
Notice to Members announcing the Commission's approval of the proposed
rule change.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is
the requirement under Section 15A of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities association are
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general to protect investors and the public interest.\7\ NASD
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of the Act in that SMART/Track will eliminate the use of
paper corporate action liability notices and will provide firms with an
electronic, centralized system to distribute, manage, and control
liability notices. In addition to reducing the risks, costs, and delays
resulting from missing or inaccurate information associated with paper
corporate action liability notices, SMART/Track gives firms detailed
disclosure of the terms and conditions of the corporate action, enables
firms to more timely receive and distribute corporate action liability
notices, and provides an audit trail with a complete record of actions
taken regarding a liability notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2007-035 in the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-035. 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, 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 filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD and on
NASD's Web site, http://www.finra.org/RulesRegulation/RuleFilings/index.htm.
 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-2007-035 and should be submitted on or before November 7, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20385 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42073-42075]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17273]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67388; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Customer Rebates in Penny Pilot Options

July 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on June 29, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, 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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Option Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend a Penny Pilot \3\ Option Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity. The
Exchange also proposes a minor technical amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through June 30, 2012. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April
4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026 (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61455 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-013) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 65969 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness extending and replacing Penny
Pilot); SR-NADAQ-2012-075 (not published) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness extending and replacing Penny Pilot). See
also Exchange Rule Chapter VI, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on July 2, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change 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
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Option Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
modify the five tier structure for paying Customer Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange proposes to amend the
qualifications for a Tier 4 Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity to further
incentivize NOM Participants to route Customer orders in Penny Pilot
Options to the Exchange by providing NOM Participants another means of
achieving a certain volume criteria to qualify for a rebate. The
Exchange believes that incentivizing NOM Participants to send
additional Customer orders in Penny Pilot Options to the Exchange will
benefit all market participants by adding liquidity to the market.
    Specifically, the Exchange currently pays a Customer Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options based on the following tier structure:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Rebate to
                       Monthly volume                            add
                                                              liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 Participant adds Customer liquidity of up to 14,999         $0.26
 contracts per day in a month..............................
Tier 2 Participant adds Customer liquidity of 15,000 to             0.38
 49,999 contracts per day in a month.......................
Tier 3 Participant adds Customer liquidity of 50,000 to             0.43
 74,999 contracts per day in a month.......................
Tier 4 Participant adds Customer liquidity of 75,000 or             0.44
 more contracts per day in a month.........................
Tier 5 Participant adds (1) Customer liquidity of 25,000 or         0.42
 more contracts per day in a month, (2) the Participant has
 certified for the Investor Support Program set forth in
 Rule 7014; and (3) the Participant executed at least one
 order on NASDAQ's equity market...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Tier 4 firms that add Customer liquidity of 75,000 or
more contracts per day in a month of Customer order liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options receive a rebate of $0.44 per contract. The Exchange
proposes to amend the Tier 4 Customer rebate by also paying the $0.44
per contract Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
when a Participant has a total volume of 100,000 or more contracts per
day in a month. Therefore, in order to qualify for the Tier 4 Customer
Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, a Participant that add
Customer liquidity of 75,000 or more contracts per day in a month or a
has total volume of 100,000 or more contracts per day in a month would
receive a rebate of $0.44 per contract.\4\ For purposes of Tier 4,
``Total Volume'' shall be defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, NOM
Market Maker \5\ and Non-NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot Options
which either adds or removes liquidity. The Exchange is also proposing
to add this definition of Total Volume in Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the $0.44 per contact
rebate or any other Customer rebate tier.
    \5\ A NOM Participant must be registered as such pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 2 of the NOM Rules, and must also remain in
good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a minor technical amendment to
redesignate note ``a'' currently referencing Tier 5 with ``b'' and
insert a new note ``a'' related to Tier 4.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ 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 or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amended pricing tier is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
part of an existing program \8\ to encourage broker-dealers acting as
agent for Customer orders to select the Exchange as a venue to post
Customer orders. The Exchange believes that its success at attracting
Customer order flow benefits all market participants by improving the
quality of order interaction and executions at the Exchange. The
Exchange believes the existing monthly volume thresholds have
incentivized firms that route Customer orders to the Exchange to
increase Customer order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange desires to
continue to encourage firms that route Customer orders to increase
Customer order flow to the Exchange by providing an additional
opportunity to qualify for a Customer Rebate and earn a rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange adopted these monthly volume achievement tiers
in September 2011. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65317
(September 12, 2011), 76 FR 57778 (September 16, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-
2011-124), 65317 (September 12, 2011), 76 FR 61129 (October 3, 2011)
(SR-NASDAQ-2011-127), 66126 (January 10, 2012), 77 FR 2335 (January
17, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-003), 66360 (February 8, 2012), 77 FR 8312
(February 14, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-022) and 66768 (April 6, 2012),
77 FR 22015 (April 12, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending Tier 4 to provide that NOM
Participants that have total volume of 100,000 or more contracts per
day in a month may also qualify for the Tier 4 rebate of $0.44 per
contract in addition to those NOM Participants that add Customer
liquidity of 75,000 or more contracts in Penny Pilot Options in a month
is reasonable because it allows additional NOM Participants to qualify
for the Customer rebate. Total Volume includes a Customer,
Professional, Firm, NOM Market Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker Penny
Pilot Option that either added or removed liquidity. The Exchange
believes that this added incentive would allow additional NOM
Participants to qualify and receive the Customer rebate.
    The Exchange believes that amending Tier 4 to provide that NOM
Participants who have total volume of 100,000 or more contracts per day
in a month may also qualify for the Tier 4 rebate of $0.44 per contract
in addition to those NOM Participants that add Customer liquidity of
75,000 or more contracts in Penny Pilot Options in a month is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because all NOM Participants that
transact Customer orders in Penny Options are eligible for the Customer
rebates.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tier 1 pays a rebate for NOM Participants that add Customer
liquidity of up to 14,999 contracts per day in a month of Penny
Options. There is no required minimum volume of Customer orders to
qualify for a Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the calculation of Total Volume for
purposes of qualifying for amended Tier 4 is reasonable because the
Exchange is providing NOM Participants with an added opportunity to
receive a Tier 4 Customer rebate by adding volume from all market
participants, not only Customer volume. The Exchange believes this
amendment will allow a greater number of NOM Participants to qualify
for the Tier 4 rebate.
    The Exchange believes that the calculation of Total Volume for
purposes of qualifying for amended Tier 4 is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all NOM Participants that transact Customer
orders in Penny Pilot Options would be eligible to qualify for a rebate
starting with the first executed contract that added Customer
liquidity.\10\ The Exchange's proposal to renumber the notes to add a
new note referencing Tier 4 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because these amendments provide greater clarity and
accuracy to the Rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
ten U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or
rebate opportunities to be inadequate. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rebate scheme is competitive and similar to other fees,
rebates and tier opportunities in place on other exchanges. The
Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts
rebates present on the Exchange

today and substantially influences the proposal set forth above.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
NASDAQ has designed its fees to compete effectively for the execution
and routing of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to
investors of options trading. The Exchange believes that incentivizing
NOM Participants to transact greater Customer volume on the Exchange
benefits all market participants because of the increased liquidity to
the market.

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)(ii) of the Act.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-83. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-83 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17273 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 2076-2077]
[DOCID:fr11ja08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 229 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards. The
individual petition is described below, including the party seeking
relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief
being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

(WATCO Companies, Inc.)

[Docket Number FRA-2007-27969]

    The WATCO Companies, Inc. (WATCO) seeks a waiver to comply with the
requirements in 49 CFR 229.137(b)(iv), which would allow the toilets to
be removed from those newly acquired locomotives, which came equipped
with sanitation compartments. The total number of these newly acquired
locomotives is 53, which were purchased from the after market and only
a portion of these locomotives contained sanitation compartments. These
locomotives have now been disbursed around the WATCO railroads mixed in
with the existing locomotives that are not equipped with sanitation
compartments.
    WATCO is comprised of the following railroads: Alabama Southern
Railroad, Arkansas Southern Railroad, Eastern Idaho Railroad, Great
Northern Railroad,

Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad, Louisiana Southern Railroad, Mission
Mountain Railroad, Mississippi Southern Railroad, Palouse River and
Coulee City Railroad, Southern Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad, Stillwater
Central Railroad, Timber Rock Railroad, and Yellowstone Valley
Railroad. WATCO claims that all these component railroads have active
and accessible outside-of-the-locomotive sanitation plans in place for
the employees per Sec.  229.137(b)(iv). WATCO further claims that this
would bring uniformity to operations as well as reduce their exposure
to the added cost and local environmental compliance for supporting the
servicing of the locomotives equipped with toilets.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2007-27969) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online

instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 4, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-308 Filed 1-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P