[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78499-78501]
[DOCID:fr29de06-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54982; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Changes and Amendment No. 1 thereto to
Rules 601, 607, 612 and 629 Relating to Single Arbitrators for Claims
not Exceeding $200,000

December 20, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 13, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. On December
19, 2006, the NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
(``Amendment No. 1'').\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing,
the Exchange provided more information regarding the proposed
amendments to certain arbitration fees and hearing deposits, and
clarified certain aspects of the rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the proposed rule change, matters in controversy involving
customer or non-member claims not exceeding $200,000 (excluding costs
and interest) would be decided by one public arbitrator, unless the
customer or non-member requests that the matter be decided by one
securities industry arbitrator.\4\ In addition, the proposed rule
change would reduce several customers' fees and hearing deposits for
matters involving one arbitrator. The text of the proposed rule change,
as amended, is available on the NYSE's Web site (http://www.NYSE.com),

at the NYSE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE stated that approximately one-third of NYSE arbitration
matters since 2002 have involved claims of less than $200,000.
Telephone conversation among Karen Kupersmith, Director of
Arbitration, NYSE; Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel--Sales
Practices, Commission; and Michael Hershaft, Special Counsel,
Commission (Dec. 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The NYSE is proposing to amend Rules 601 (Simplified Arbitration),
607 (Appointment of Arbitrators), 612 (Initiation of Proceedings), and
629 (Schedule of Fees). As described in more detail below, the proposed
amendments would provide that all arbitration matters involving
customers or non-members not exceeding $25,000 would be resolved on the
papers (i.e., without a hearing) by one public arbitrator or, upon
request of the customer or non-member, by one securities industry
arbitrator. The customer or non-member also could demand or consent to
a hearing for matters not exceeding $25,000.
    In addition, all arbitration matters involving customers or non-
members exceeding $25,000, but not exceeding $200,000 (excluding costs
and interest), would be heard by one public arbitrator at a hearing,
unless the customer or non-member requests that the matter be heard by
one securities industry arbitrator. The proposed amendments would
clarify that, to the extent the rules provide for a choice in panel
composition or method of arbitrator appointment, the customer's choice
prevails.\5\ Finally, the proposed amendments also would reduce several
fees and hearing deposits for matters heard by one arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In arbitration matters involving non-members and members,
but not customers, the non-member's choice prevails. See NYSE Rules
607(a)(1) and 607(c)(2)(i)(a)-(b).

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

Simplified Arbitration

    NYSE Rule 601 currently provides that any dispute, claim or
controversy between a customer and an associated person or a member not
exceeding $25,000 is resolved by one public arbitrator on the papers,
unless the customer requests or consents to a hearing, or the
arbitrator calls a hearing.\6\ If the respondent files a related
counterclaim exceeding $25,000, the arbitrator may refer the claim,
counterclaim and/or a third-party claim to a panel of three
arbitrators.\7\ The arbitrator also may dismiss the counterclaim and/or
third-party claim, without prejudice to the counterclaimants and/or
third-party claimants pursuing their claims in a separate proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Rule 601(f).
    \7\ NYSE Rule 601(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would amend NYSE Rules 601(a) and 601(f) to provide
that all arbitration matters involving customers or non-members not
exceeding $25,000 would be resolved by one public arbitrator on the
papers, unless the customer or non-member demands or consents to a
hearing, or the arbitrator calls a hearing. The proposed amendments to
NYSE Rule 601(f) also would clarify that the customer or non-member may
request that the matter be resolved by one securities industry
arbitrator.
    The proposal also would amend NYSE Rule 601(d)(2) to provide that
if the respondent files a related counterclaim or third-party claim
exceeding $25,000 but not exceeding $200,000, any party or the
arbitrator may request a hearing before one arbitrator. If the
respondent files a related counterclaim or third-party claim exceeding
$200,000, the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 601(d)(2) would provide
that the arbitrator may refer the claim, counterclaim and/or third-
party claim to a panel of three arbitrators pursuant to NYSE Rule 607.
Under the proposed amendments to Rule 601(d)(2), the arbitrator also
may dismiss the counterclaim and/or third-party claim, without
prejudice to the counterclaimants and/or third-party claimants pursuing
their claims in a separate proceeding.
    The proposed amendments to the ``Fees for Simplified Arbitration,
Industry as Claimant'' Schedule in NYSE Rule 601 would reduce the
hearing deposit that members, member firms, member corporations, or
allied members and non-members pay for claims not exceeding $25,000.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would reduce the hearing deposit
from $600 to $450 when the industry is a claimant and the decision is
made after a hearing. The filing fee ($500) and fee for a decision on
the papers ($300) would not be changed under the proposal.

Appointment of Arbitrators

    NYSE Rule 607(a)(1) currently provides that in all matters
involving customers or non-members where the matter in controversy
exceeds $25,000 or where the matter in controversy does not involve or
disclose a money claim, the Director of Arbitration appoints a panel of
three arbitrators, a majority of whom are public, unless the customer
or non-member requests that a majority be from the securities industry.
The proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 607(a)(1)(i) would provide that
all arbitration matters involving customers or non-members where the
matter in controversy exceeds $25,000, but does not exceed $200,000
(excluding costs and interest), would be heard by one public
arbitrator, unless the customer or non-member requests a securities
industry arbitrator.
    Under the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 607(a)(1)(ii), all
arbitration matters involving customers or non-members where the matter
in controversy exceeds $200,000 would be heard by three arbitrators, a
majority of whom would be public, unless the customer or non-member
requests that a majority be from the securities industry.
    The proposed amendments also would add a new paragraph (2) to NYSE
Rule 607(b) which would clarify that, in all arbitration matters
involving customers or non-members, to the extent the NYSE arbitration
rules provide for a choice in panel composition or method of arbitrator
appointment, the customer's choice would prevail.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Proceedings

    Current NYSE Rule 612 sets forth the procedures for initiating a
customer or non-member arbitration proceeding that is not being filed
under NYSE Rule 601, which governs Simplified Arbitration. The proposed
amendments to NYSE Rule 612 are intended to conform that rule with the
proposed changes to NYSE Rules 601 and 607. In particular, the proposed
amendments to NYSE Rule 612(c)(1) would provide that in matters
exceeding $25,000, but not exceeding $200,000, if the respondent(s)
files a related counterclaim, third-party claim, or cross-claim
exceeding $200,000, the arbitrator may refer the claim, counterclaim,
third-party claim, and/or cross-claim, to a panel of three arbitrators
in accordance with Rule 607. The arbitrator also may dismiss the
counterclaim, third-party claim, and/or cross-claim without prejudice
to the counterclaimants, third-party claimants, and/or cross-claimants
pursuing their claims in a separate proceeding pursuant to the proposed
amendments to NYSE Rule 612(c)(1).

Schedule of Fees

    NYSE Rule 629 sets forth the required fees and hearing deposits for
arbitrations in the NYSE arbitration forum. The proposed amendments to
NYSE Rule 629 would reduce the fees and hearing deposits that
customers, members, and non-members pay for claims exceeding $25,000
and not exceeding $200,000, to reflect the reduced costs associated
with a hearing by one arbitrator, rather than three. The proposed
amendments to the schedules contained in NYSE Rules 629(c)(1)-(2) and
629(i) would reduce the hearing deposits to $450 from a maximum of $750
under the existing rule.
    In Amendment No. 1, the NYSE stated that it is proposing to reduce
fees and hearing deposits because the costs of administering an
arbitration matter with one arbitrator is less than the costs
associated with three arbitrators. In cases with one arbitrator, the
proposed fees and hearing deposits are based on either the current
hearing deposit or the fee charged for a pre-hearing conference with
one arbitrator, whichever is less. The NYSE also notes in Amendment No.
1 that the costs associated with a pre-hearing conference, generally
conducted either on the papers submitted or by telephone, are less than
those associated with an in-person hearing.
    In Amendment No. 1, the NYSE stated that the proposed fees and
hearing deposits are intended to permit the NYSE to recover some of its
direct, actual costs of administering arbitration cases. The NYSE
further stated that those direct, actual costs are attributable in part
to arbitrator compensation and travel expenses, court reporters and
(when a hearing takes place outside New York) conference rooms. The
NYSE also stated in Amendment No. 1 that under the proposed rule
changes, the actual costs it bears for administering arbitration
hearings involving a single arbitrator would remain greater than fees
paid by customers or non-members.

Statutory Basis

    The NYSE stated that it believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent

with Section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act requiring exchanges to have rules
that provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities,
and Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act requiring exchanges to have rules
designed to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE 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

    The NYSE has neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the 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, as amended, is consistent with the Act. The proposed rule
change, as amended, is based on, but not identical to, the Uniform Code
of Arbitration (``SICA Uniform Code'') adopted by the Securities
Industry Conference on Arbitration (``SICA'').
    The Commission requests comments on the differences between the
NYSE proposal and the SICA Uniform Code. In particular, under SICA
Uniform Code Section 16(a), one arbitrator hears claims up to $100,000;
whereas the NYSE proposes that one arbitrator would hear claims not
exceeding $200,000. Should NYSE's proposed rule be consistent with the
SICA Uniform Code and only permit matters to be resolved by one
arbitrator if they involve claims of $100,000 or less? In the
alternative, should customers or non-members be able to request one
arbitrator for claims exceeding $200,000? In addition, the SICA Uniform
Code does not contain provisions similar to the amendments proposed to
NYSE Rules 601(d)(2) and 612(c)(1), as discussed above
    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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NYSE-2006-61 on 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-NYSE-2006-61. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NYSE. 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-NYSE-2006-61 and should be submitted on or before
January 19, 2007.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22401 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24030-24033]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09451]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0852; FRL-9945-40-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; AR;
Redesignation of the Crittenden County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2015, the State of Arkansas, through the
Arkansas Department of Environment Quality (ADEQ), submitted a request
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the
portion of Arkansas that is within the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-
Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area'' or ``Area'')
and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Area. EPA has determined that the Memphis, TN-
MS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS); is approving the State's plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area,

including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the
years 2012 and 2027 for the Arkansas portion of the Area, into the SIP;
and is redesignating the Arkansas portion of the Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs for the Arkansas
portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0852. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
February 10, 2016 proposal (81 FR 7046). In that document, we proposed
to determine that the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area is continuing to attain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and incorporate into the
Arkansas SIP the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2012 and 2027 MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for Arkansas' portion of Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area;
and to redesignate the Arkansas portion of the Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In that notice, EPA also notified the
public of the status of the Agency's adequacy determination for the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for Arkansas' portion of the Memphis, TN-
MS-AR Area. No comments were received. The details of Arkansas'
submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in
the February 10, 2016 proposal.

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of Arkansas' redesignation request changes the legal
designation of Crittenden County in the Arkansas portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, found at 40 CFR 81.325, from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of Arkansas'
associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan into the SIP for
maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Arkansas portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area through 2027. The maintenance plan establishes
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2012 and 2027 for the Crittenden
County portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area and includes contingency
measures\1\ to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The MVEBs,
in tons per day (tpd) for the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Area along with the allocations from the safety margin, are provided in
the table below.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 20, 2016, ADEQ clarified ADEQ's commitment is to
adopt and implement contingency measures upon a violation-triggering
event if it is determined that the violation is caused by a source
or sources within Crittenden County. Clarification Letter from
Stuart Spencer to Ron Curry, January 20, 2016 (Clarification
Letter). A copy is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \2\ Arkansas has chosen to allocate a portion of the available
safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027. ADEQ has
allocated 6.29 tpd to the 2027 NOX MVEB and 1.10 tpd to
the 2027 VOC MVEB.

                          MVEBs for the Arkansas Portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area
                                                      [tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2012                            2027
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Emissions...............................           13.04            2.35            5.18            0.98
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB.................             N/A             N/A            6.29            1.10
Conformity MVEB.................................           13.04            2.35           11.47            2.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the Memphis,
TN-MS-AR Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the Memphis, TN-MS-
AR Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan
(including the Clarification Letter) for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area,
including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2012 and 2027, into the
Arkansas SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027, and the
budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5).
    Third, EPA is determining that Arkansas has met the criteria under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving Arkansas' redesignation
request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Arkansas portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. As mentioned above, approval of the
redesignation request changes the official designation of Crittenden
County in the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at
40 CFR part 81.
    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Arkansas portion of
the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area adequate for the purpose of transportation
conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation
partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX
and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 24, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: April 13, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170(e) the third table titled ``EPA-Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for ``2008
8-hour ozone Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan, and Clarification
Letter for the Crittenden County portion of Memphis, TN-AR-MS
Nonattainment Area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 8-hour ozone Redesignation    Crittenden County        12/10/2015  4/25/2016 [Insert    ...................
 Request, Maintenance Plan, and     portion of                           Federal Register
 Clarification Letter for the       Memphis, TN-AR-MS                    citation].
 Crittenden County portion of       Nonattainment Area.
 Memphis, TN-AR-MS Nonattainment
 Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.304, the table entitled ``Arkansas-2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the heading of
the entry for ``Memphis, TN-MS-AR Crittenden County'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.304  Arkansas.

* * * * *

                            Arkansas--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation                           Classification
         Designated area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date \1\             Type               Date \1\               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis, TN-MS-AR \2\ Crittenden        4/25/2016  Attainment.........
 County.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-09451 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P