[Federal Register: October 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 57723-57725]
[DOCID:fr03oc08-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58658; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Trading Halt Rule in Connection With the Dissemination of Net Asset
Value and Disclosed Portfolio for Certain Derivative Securities
Products

September 26, 2008.
    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 September 18, 2008, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 136 to state that the
Exchange will halt trading in New Derivative Securities Products \3\
listed on the Exchange for which a net asset value (and in the case of
managed fund shares or actively managed exchange-traded funds, a
``disclosed portfolio'') is disseminated if the Exchange becomes aware
that the net asset value and, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio is
not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Website
at http://www.phlx.com/regulatory/reg_rulefilings.aspx , at the
Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Phlx Rule 136(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to address trading halts
for New Derivative Securities Products listed on the Exchange for which
a net asset value and/or a disclosed portfolio is disseminated. Net
asset values and disclosed portfolios, when applicable, are calculated
daily and disseminated to all market participants at the same time. In
this proposed rule change, the Exchange is amending its rules to state
that the Exchange will halt trading in New Derivative Securities
Products listed on the Exchange for which a net asset value and/or a
disclosed portfolio

is disseminated if the Exchange becomes aware that the net asset value
or, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio is not being disseminated to
all market participants at the same time. Also, the Exchange will
maintain the trading halt until such time as the Exchange becomes aware
that the net asset value and, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio is
available to all market participants. In addition, the Exchange
represents that in the event that the net asset value or the disclosed
portfolio, as applicable, for a New Derivative Securities Product
ceases to be disseminated altogether, the Exchange will halt trading in
such New Derivative Securities Product.
    The Exchange notes that it recently filed a proposed rule change in
which it adopted a rule, Phlx Rule 136(d)(4), stating that the Exchange
would halt trading in New Derivative Securities Products trading on the
Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, if the listing market
notifies the Exchange that the net asset value and, if applicable, the
disclosed portfolio is not being disseminated to all market
participants at the same time.\4\ Also the Exchange is now proposing to
clarify the rule text in Phlx Rule 136(d)(4) by changing the word
``and'' to ``or'' in the second half of the first sentence of that
paragraph to make clear that the Exchange would halt trading upon
notification by the listing market of the New Derivative Securities
Product that either the net asset value or the disclosed portfolio is
not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time.
Consistent with the earlier proposed rule change, the Exchange now
proposes to adopt a rule, Phlx Rule 136(c)(1)(B), stating that the
Exchange will halt trading in New Derivative Securities Products listed
on the Exchange for which a net asset value and/or a disclosed
portfolio is disseminated if the Exchange becomes aware that the net
asset value or, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio is not being
disseminated to all market participants at the same time. As a
consequence of the additional language proposed in Phlx Rule 136(c),
the Exchange is renumbering the existing material to provide more
clarity to the section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57806 (May 9, 2008),
73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a National Market
System, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonably designed
to prevent trading in certain New Derivative Securities Products when
the availability of certain information is impaired. Specifically, the
proposed rule change is intended to protect investors and the public
interest when key information relating to the net asset value or the
disclosed portfolio becomes unavailable or available only to some
market participants, but not all participants, at the time of
dissemination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\ A proposed rule change filed under 19b-
4(f)(6) normally does not become operative until 30 days after the date
of filing.\9\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Phlx requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and make the
proposed rule change operative upon filing because this proposal raises
no novel issues and is virtually identical to the rule proposals of the
American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ''), the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), which were recently approved by the
Commission.\11\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission therefore grants the Exchange's request
and designates the proposal to be operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ Id. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58111 (July 7,
2008), 73 FR 40643 (July 15, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-40, SR-NASDAQ-2008-
046, SR-NYSE-2008-39, SR-NYSEArca-2008-50).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-Phlx-2008-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-64. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-Phlx-2008-64 and should be submitted on or before
October 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23362 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 68443]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ20-5-000]

Notice of Filing; City of Anaheim, California

    Take notice that on December 9, 2019, the City of Anaheim,
California submitted its tariff filing: City of Anaheim 2020
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment to be effective
January 1, 2020.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 30, 2019.

    Dated: December 10, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27017 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10719-10720]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04936]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0652; FRL-9975-24]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed New Collection
(EPA ICR No. 2570.01); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Guidance on Expanded Access to TSCA Confidential
Business Information'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 2570.01 and OMB
Control No. 2070--[new], represents a new request. Before submitting
the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is
summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are
available in the docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0652, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Jessica Barkas, Environmental
Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Guidance on Expanded Access to TSCA Confidential Business
Information
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2570.01.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070--[new].
    ICR status: This ICR addresses a new information collection
activity. Under the PRA, an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR addresses the content and form of the statements
of need and agreements required under TSCA section 14(d)(4), (5), and
(6), which are described in the three draft guidance documents that
have been developed to implement the new authorities in TSCA section
14(d)(4), (5), and (6), and include some basic logistical information
on where and how to submit requests to EPA. Making a request for access
to TSCA CBI is a voluntary activity, but is required in order to gain
such access under TSCA section 14(d).
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14.8
hours and cost about $868 per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are mainly government employees (federal, state, local,
tribal), as well as medical professionals, such as doctors and nurses.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 6.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 89 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $5,204.11. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $5,204.11 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    The ICR package is being submitted to OMB for review and approval
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10.

III. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 5, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-04936 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 54407-54408]
[DOCID:fr07se10-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62792; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-85]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule
107B--NYSE Amex Equities To Revise the Quoting Requirement

August 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 26, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107B--NYSE Amex Equities
(``Supplemental Liquidity Providers'') (``SLPs''), which is a pilot
program, to revise the quoting requirement. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107B--NYSE Amex Equities, which
is a pilot program, to eliminate the ability for an SLP to earn a
rebate if it maintains a quote at the National Best Bid (``NBB'') or
National Best Offer (``NBO'') an average of 3% in an assigned SLP
security. Instead, an SLP would be eligible to earn a rebate only if it
meets the 5% quoting requirement currently set forth in the rule. The
Exchange also proposes to clarify which mnemonics that a member
organization may use for the SLP trading activity to enable a member
organization to use the same mnemonic for non-SLP trading activity.
    Rule 107B provides for a class of market participants referred to
as Supplemental Liquidity Providers or ``SLPs.'' \3\ Approved Exchange
member organizations are eligible to be an SLP. SLPs supplement the
liquidity provided by Designated Market Makers (``DMMs''). SLPs have
monthly quoting requirements that may qualify them to receive SLP
rebates, which are larger than the general rebate available to non-SLP
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The pilot is currently scheduled to end on September 30,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of the SLP program is to encourage participants to quote
more often and to add displayed liquidity to the market. Thus, Rule
107B(a) requires that an SLP maintain a bid and/or an offer at the NBB
or NBO averaging at least 5% of the trading day for each assigned
security. Notwithstanding the 5% quoting requirement, an SLP can earn a
financial rebate if it maintains a quote an average of 3% in an
assigned SLP security.
    If an SLP fails to meet a 3% average quoting requirement in its
assigned securities, the SLP is not eligible for SLP rebates on
executions for that month. Further, if an SLP fails to meet its 5%
average quoting requirement in its assigned securities for three (3)
consecutive months (not including the first month of SLP operation),
the SLP Liaison Committee may, in its discretion, impose the following
non-regulatory penalties: (1) Revocation of the affected security(ies);
(2) each time a security(ies) is revoked for failure to meet the
quoting requirement for a particular security, revocation of an
additional unaffected security; and/or (3) disqualification from the
SLP program.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the ability of an SLP to earn a
rebate if it maintains a quote in assigned SLP securities at the NBB or
NBO at least 3%, up to, but not including 5% of the time. Instead, to
align the rebate with the 5% quoting requirement set forth in Rule
107B(a), as proposed, an SLP would not be able to earn a rebate unless
it maintained a quote at the NBB or NBO an average of 5% of the trading
day. The Exchange proposes to make conforming amendments to Rule
107B(i)(1)(A) and (B) by deleting the last sentence of each paragraph
as no longer necessary. The Exchange believes that this proposed change
strengthens the SLP program by ensuring that rebates are paid only if
the SLP meets the minimum quoting requirement of an SLP.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the operational pre-
qualifications for an SLP. Among other things, the Exchange requires
pursuant to Rule 107B(c)(1) that an SLP use a unique mnemonic for its
SLP business, which enables the Exchange to identify SLP transactions
for billing and regulatory purposes. The Exchange proposes to revise
this requirement to clarify that the member organization must identify
to the Exchange mnemonics that identify the SLP trading activity in
assigned SLP securities. As proposed, because all order flow in an
assigned SLP security using that mnemonic will be treated as SLP
volume, a member organization may not use such identified mnemonics for
trading activity at the Exchange in assigned SLP securities that is not
SLP trading activity. However, to enable the member organization to use
the same mnemonic for both SLP and non-SLP trading activity in
different securities, an SLP may use mnemonics used for SLP trading for
trading activity in securities not assigned to the SLP. As further
proposed, the rule would specify that if the member organization does
not identify such mnemonics to the Exchange, the member organization
will not receive credit for such SLP trading. The Exchange proposes to
make a conforming amendment to Rule 107B(f)(2).
    In addition to the above proposed changes, the Exchange proposes to
make clarifying amendments to Rule 107B. First, because FINRA now
conducts all market regulation functions on behalf of the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to delete references to the ``Division of Market
Surveillance,'' and replace it with a reference to FINRA (see Section
(e) of the Rule). Second, the Exchange proposes to revise section
(g)(2)(A) of the rule, to provide that a DMM unit shall not also act as
an SLP in the same

securities in which it is registered as a DMM. The Exchange does not
need to spell out the term ``designated market maker'' as it, and the
term DMM unit, are defined terms in Rule 2.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these changes on October 1,
2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the SLP program is a pilot program currently
set to expire on September 30, 2010. The Exchange intends to file to
make the program permanent or extend the pilot program so that it
can continue past September 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the
proposed Rule is consistent with these principles in that it seeks to
increase the trading performance of SLPs, which will benefit all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change
along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSEAmex-2010-85 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-NYSEAmex-2010-85. 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 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 a.m. and 3 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-
NYSEAmex-2010-85 and should be submitted on or before September 28,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22206 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11727-11734]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04900]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0205; FRL-9943-27-Region 8]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for Billings, MT
2010 SO2 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2015, the State of Montana submitted a request
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the
Billings, Montana, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area to attainment
and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the area. In response to this submittal, the EPA
is proposing to take the following actions: Determine that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 SO2
primary NAAQS; approve Montana's plan for maintaining attainment of the
2010 SO2 primary NAAQS in the area; and redesignate the
Billings SO2 nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010
SO2 primary NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0205, at http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI 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.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking 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.
     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. What is the background for the EPA's proposed actions?

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 2, 2010). Under the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
met at a monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations is less than or equal
to 75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T). See 40 CFR 50.17. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year meets
data completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete, and a
quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days for
each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75
percent of the hourly concentration values, including state-flagged
data affected by exceptional events which have been approved for
exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS.\2\ At the time the EPA conducted the initial round of
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS,\3\
Billings contained an SO2 monitor (Coburn Road) which
registered violations of the standard based on the three most recent
years of complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air quality
data. In a letter to the EPA, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
requested that all 56 counties in Montana be designated as attainment
or unclassifiable. The EPA responded to Montana's initial designations
request in a February 6, 2013 letter in which the EPA disagreed with
Montana's request to classify Yellowstone County (which includes
Billings) as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard
and presented the case that all of Yellowstone County should be
designated as nonattainment. In an April 3, 2013 letter to the EPA,
Montana reiterated its request that Yellowstone County be designated
unclassifiable, but requested an alternative nonattainment area
boundary consisting of only a small portion of Billings if the EPA
determined that a nonattainment designation was appropriate. The EPA
agreed with the State's technical rationale for reducing the
nonattainment area to a small portion of Billings which included only
one source of SO2: The PPL Corette Power Plant.\4\ The EPA
found that Montana's technical analysis demonstrated that the PPL
Corette plant was the key contributor to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
violations at the Coburn Road monitor. The EPA, therefore, designated
the area recommended by Montana as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on August 5, 2013, (effective October 4, 2013)
using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data, leaving the remaining portion
of Billings and Yellowstone County undesignated and subject to future
analysis and designation. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). This
nonattainment designation established an attainment date five years
after the October 4, 2013, effective date for areas classified as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\5\ Therefore,
the Billings SO2 nonattainment area's attainment date is
October 4, 2018. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
was also required to submit an attainment SIP to EPA within 18 months
following the October 4, 2013 effective date of designation, or by
April 6, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(i).
    \3\ The EPA finalized nonattainment designations for 29 areas of
the U.S. that contained SO2 monitors violating the NAAQS
on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191, 47205), and took no designation-
related action on the rest of the country. The EPA was placed under
a binding schedule for designation of the remaining portions of the
U.S. for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on March 2, 2015. See,
Sierra Club, et al. v. McCarthy, Case No. 13-cv-03953-SI (N.D. Cal.,
March 2, 2015).
    \4\ Montana's recommended alternative boundary, now the Billings
2010 SO2 Nonattainment Area, can be found in the Billings
Redesignation Request at 13.
    \5\ CAA section 192.
    \6\ CAA section 191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 16, 2015, MDEQ submitted a request for the EPA to
determine that the Billings SO2 nonattainment area has
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS per the EPA's ``clean data
policy'' (Billings 2010 SO2 Clean Data Request).\7\ The
clean data policy represents the EPA's interpretation that certain
planning-related requirements of part D of the Act, such as the
attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM),
and reasonable further progress (RFP), are suspended for areas that are
in fact attaining the NAAQS. The clean data policy will be explained
further in Section IV of this proposed rulemaking. A determination of
attainment, or clean data determination, does not constitute a formal
redesignation to attainment. If EPA subsequently determines that an
area is no longer attaining the standard, those requirements that were
suspended by the clean data determination are once again due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Billings 2010 SO2 Clean Data Request is
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2015, James Parker of PPL Montana sent a letter to Ed
Warner of MDEQ notifying him that the PPL Corette Plant was officially
retired on March 18, 2015, and had consumed its last coal on March 3,
2015. On May 13, 2015, Gordon Criswell of PPL Montana sent a letter to
MDEQ requesting a revocation of the Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP)
#2953-00 and Title V Operating Permit #OP2953-08. On May 21, 2015,
David Klemp of MDEQ sent a letter to Mr. Criswell informing him that
MDEQ was revoking both permits, as PPL had requested, effective
immediately.
    On December 14, 2015, the State submitted to the EPA a request for
redesignation of the Billings 2010 SO2 nonattainment area to
attainment and a SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the
area.

III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation of a nonattainment area provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
    On April 16, 1992, the EPA provided guidance on redesignation in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on

April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). The EPA has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in several guidance documents. For
the purposes of this action, the EPA will be referencing two of these
documents: (1) The September 4, 1992 Memorandum from John Calcagni
titled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Calcagni Memo''); and (2)
The April 23, 2014 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled ``Guidance
for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,''
(hereafter referred to as ``2010 SO2 NAA Guidance'').

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the request?

    EPA's evaluation of Montana's redesignation request and maintenance
plan was based on consideration of the five redesignation criteria
provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

Criteria (1)--The Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area Has Attained the 2010
1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). The two primary methods for
evaluating ambient air quality impacted by SO2 emissions are
through dispersion modeling and air quality monitoring. For
SO2, an area may in some circumstances be considered to be
attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.17 and Appendix T of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain the NAAQS based on monitoring,
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile (fourth highest value)
of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations measured at each monitor within
an area must be less than or equal to 75 ppb. The data must be
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The EPA's determination
of attainment can be based on monitoring data alone, without the need
for dispersion modeling analyses, if the air agency provides an
analysis demonstrating that the monitor(s) for the affected area is
located in the area of maximum ambient concentration of
SO2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance, at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is determining that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The EPA reviewed SO2 monitoring data
from the lone monitoring station inside the Billings SO2
nonattainment area, the Coburn Road station. The Coburn Road monitor
data have been quality-assured, are recorded in AQS, and indicate that
the area is attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The fourth-
highest 1-hour SO2 values at the Coburn Road monitor for the
3-year averages of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized
in Table 1, below.

                                Table 1--Coburn Road Monitored SO2 Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012-2014
                                                              2012          2013          2014      Design value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 99th Percentile..................................           70            48            93            70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown, the 3-year design value for 2012-2014 at the Coburn Road
monitor meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Further, the EPA expects
the SO2 emissions at this monitor to decrease significantly
following the shutdown of the PPL Corette facility. Since the facility
last operated on March 3, 2015, the values at the Coburn Road monitor
have not exceeded 19 ppb SO2. This trend is anticipated to
be permanent, as the State indicated in its analysis that
SO2 emissions have since 2010 consistently decreased to
levels well below the NAAQS during times when PPL Corette was not
operating.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Billings Redesignation Request at 8-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of Montana's redesignation request, the State submitted
information to support a showing that the Coburn Road monitor was sited
in the area of maximum ambient SO2 concentration within the
Billings SO2 nonattainment area in accordance with the 2010
SO2 NAA Guidance. This showing included data from historical
monitors near the Coburn Road monitor which consistently showed lower
values than those at Coburn Road. The EPA has reviewed Montana's
information regarding this showing, but finds that it is no longer
applicable to the current SO2 emissions mix in the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area because the sole SO2
source in the area (PPL Corette) has shut down. The EPA does not find
it necessary to require the State to conduct new modeling or
exploratory monitoring as recommended by EPA's May 2013 Draft
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (TAD)\10\ to determine the
point of maximum concentration in the nonattainment area because the
source of concern in the area has shut down and been dismantled,
resulting in SO2 concentrations well below the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On page 58 of the 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance, EPA
recommends that air agencies follow the Draft ``SO2 NAAQS
Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance
Document,'' Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division. Although this 2010 SO2 NAA
Guidance references the Draft monitoring TAD with regard to
reviewing clean data determinations, the EPA also considers the TAD
recommendations applicable to attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and therefore meets the requirements of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). If the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS
prior to the EPA taking action in response to the State's request, the
EPA will not take final action to approve the redesignation
request.\11\ As discussed in more detail below, Montana has committed
to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance, at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, Montana separately submitted to the EPA a request for a
determination of clean data for the Billings SO2
nonattainment area on January 16, 2015. The clean data policy
represents the EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of part D
of title I of the Act are suspended for areas that are currently
attaining the NAAQS. The requirements that are suspended in an area
attaining the standard include the requirements to submit an
``attainment SIP'' that provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS;
implementation of all RACM; RFP; and implementation of contingency
measures for failure to meet deadlines for RFP and attainment. In the
2010 SO2 NAA guidance, the EPA

explained our intention to apply the EPA's clean data policy to the
2010 SO2 primary NAAQS.\12\ Because EPA's analysis in
determining whether an area has attained under the clean data policy is
the same as its analysis under the first redesignation criterion, EPA
is also here proposing that the Billings SO2 nonattainment
area qualifies for a determination of attainment under the clean data
policy, based on the 2012-2014 monitoring data from the Coburn Road
monitor. In the event that EPA does not finalize the proposed
redesignation, EPA may choose to separately finalize the clean data
determination, thereby suspending Montana's obligation to submit the
attainment planning-related requirements for the area for as long as
the area continues to attain the standard. As with its analysis that
the area has attained under the redesignation requirements, for
purposes of the clean data determination, the EPA is not requiring
Montana to demonstrate that the monitor is located in the area of
maximum concentration in accordance with the 2010 SO2 NAA
Guidance due to the unique circumstances associated with the PPL
Corette shutdown.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 52.
    \13\ Id. at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria (2)--Montana Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k);
and Criteria (5)--Montana Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment under a NAAQS,
the CAA requires the EPA to determine that the state has met all
applicable requirements for that NAAQS under section 110 and part D of
title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has
a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for that NAAQS for the area
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). The EPA proposes to find that Montana
has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Billings SO2
nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS under section 110
of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to find that the Montana SIP satisfies
the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of
redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, the EPA proposes to determine that
the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for purposes of redesignation in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
determinations, the EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable
to the Billings SO2 nonattainment area and, if applicable,
that they are fully approved under section 110(k).
a. The Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area Has Met All
Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal
of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public
notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, the EPA
has required certain states to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification in that state. The EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, the
EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements
should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
    In addition, the EPA believes other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements
which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with the EPA's
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR
24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking
(61 FR 20458, May 7,1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60
FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in
the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and
in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October
19, 2001).
    Title I, Part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the
CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for
nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to
section 172(b). Subpart 5 of part D, which includes section 191 and 192
of the CAA, establishes requirements for SO2, nitrogen
dioxide and lead nonattainment areas. A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in sections 172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498).
    Subpart 5 Section 172 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the
plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of
all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment
of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on
all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and
to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for
implementation in each area as components of the area's attainment
demonstration. Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must
submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of
other requirements.
    The EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before the EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I, the EPA set forth its
interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR
13498,

13564 (April 16, 1992). The EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and
other measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in
evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the
Calcagni Memo. The EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the
basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to
SO2 in the 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance, and suspends a
state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning
requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment
demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Courts have upheld the
EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1) for ``reasonably available''
control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls
that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional
measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162
(D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir.
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). But see Sierra
Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015).
    Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area, no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an
attainment demonstration and RACM are not part of the ``applicable
implementation plan'' required to have been approved prior to
redesignation per CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). The other section 172
requirements that are designed to help an area achieve attainment--the
section 172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment plans contain
provisions promoting reasonable further progress, the requirement to
submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and the section
172(c)(6) requirement for the SIP to contain control measures necessary
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS--are also not required to be
approved as part of the ``applicable implementation plan'' for purposes
of satisfying CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The
requirement for an emission inventory can be satisfied by meeting the
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan.\14\ MDEQ submitted an
emissions inventory as part of the maintenance plan for the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area, and this inventory will be discussed
further in the maintenance plan portion of this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Calcagni Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA has determined
that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas
being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR
program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area
demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more
detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October
14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' MDEQ has demonstrated that
the Billings SO2 nonattainment area will be able to maintain
the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Montana need not
have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Montana's PSD program will become effective in
the Billings SO2 nonattainment area upon redesignation to
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, the EPA believes the
Montana SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
    Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that
are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that the EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
    Montana has an approved general conformity SIP for the Billings
area. See 67 FR 62392 (October 7, 2002). Moreover, the EPA interprets
the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) because, like
other requirements listed above, state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where
state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
    For these reasons, the EPA proposes to find that Montana has
satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of
the Billings SO2 nonattainment area under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.
b. The Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area Has a Fully Approved
Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    The EPA has fully approved the applicable Montana SIP for the
Billings Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation. As indicated above, the EPA
believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with
nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment
status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
The EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, as identified above, for purposes of this
redesignation.

Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Billings SO2
Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in
Emissions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires the EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the
area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable federal air
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). The EPA proposes to find
that Montana has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement
in the Billings SO2 nonattainment area is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions. Specifically, the EPA
considers the shutdown of the PPL Corette Plant, identified as the key

contributor to the SO2 NAAQS violations at the Coburn Road
monitor,\15\ to be both permanent and enforceable. The EPA notes that
the Corette facility was still operating (though not continuously) \16\
during the 2012-2014 period during which the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
was attained in the Billings nonattainment area. Given the well-
established correlation of much lower SO2 emissions at the
Coburn Road monitor during periods when Corette has not operated, EPA
anticipates that the SO2 NAAQS will only attain by a greater
margin following the facility's shutdown. As stated in the Calcagni
Memo, ``Emission reductions from source shutdowns can be considered
permanent and enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns have been
reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been modified
accordingly.'' \17\ MDEQ revoked PPL's Title V (operating) and NSR
permits for the Corette facility.\18\ Further, the PPL Corette facility
has been dismantled, making its future operation impossible and thus
displaying the permanence of the emissions reductions in the
nonattainment area. Any new sources that may come into being within the
area would be required to demonstrate that their new SO2
emissions would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that
the air quality improvement in the Billings SO2
nonattainment area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EPA's final Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area, in the docket for EPA's
initial round of 2010 SO2 designations at EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0233-0318.
    \16\ The Corette facility did not operate for several
consecutive months in both 2012 and 2014.
    \17\ Calcagni Memo at 10.
    \18\ Permit revocation letters are included in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria (4)--The Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    To redesignate a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires
the EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance
plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Billings SO2 nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, MDEQ submitted a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment.
The EPA is proposing to find that this maintenance plan for the area
meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves
a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following
the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as
the EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2010
1-hour SO2 violations. The Calcagni Memo provides further
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a
maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is
discussed more fully below, the EPA is proposing to determine that
Montana's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is
thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Montana SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    As part of a state's maintenance plan for a 2010 SO2
nonattainment area, the air agency should develop an attainment
inventory to identify the level of emissions in the affected area which
is sufficient to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS.\19\
Montana selected 2014 as the base year (i.e., attainment emissions
inventory year) for developing an emissions inventory for
SO2 in the nonattainment area through 2024. In 2014, the
final full calendar year in which PPL Corette was permitted to operate
prior to the March 2015 shutdown, the facility emitted 1,433 tons of
SO2.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance, at 66.
    \20\ PPL Corette did not operate for nearly five months during
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2014, the Coburn Road monitor reported exceedances of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on eight different days, giving the monitor a 99th
percentile (4th highest 1-hour daily maximum concentration) of 93 ppb.
Regardless, the 2014 emissions level of 1,433 tons of SO2 is
the lowest level of any year in the attaining 2012 to 2014 period,
making it the most conservative option for the purposes of ensuring
future maintenance of the NAAQS (see Table 2). The EPA has therefore
determined that this is a level sufficient to attain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and is proposing to find that the attainment
inventory submitted as part of Montana's maintenance plan meets the
``Attainment Emissions Inventory'' requirement.

      Table 2--Annual SO2 Emissions in Billings Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Year                   2012          2013          2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2 Emissions (tons)...        1,884         2,247         1,433
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that the permanent shutdown of PPL Corette has left
the Billings SO2 nonattainment area with no sources of
SO2, and the maintenance plan for the area contains an
emissions inventory (in the ``Maintenance Demonstration'' section)
which projects a level of zero SO2 emissions in the
nonattainment area for each year from 2016 through 2024. The EPA
therefore does not anticipate emissions activity in the 2010
SO2 nonattainment area that will approach 1,433 tons of
SO2.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
    An air agency may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
either showing that future emissions of SO2 will not exceed
the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the
future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS.\21\ Montana has demonstrated maintenance by showing that
future year emissions

(through ``out year'' 2024) of SO2 in the maintenance area
are expected to remain at zero following the PPL Corette shutdown. The
State's projected emissions inventory \22\ has been reproduced as Table
3, below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 2010 SO2 NAA Guidance at 67.
    \22\ The State's emissions inventory projection is listed as
Figure 3.2 in the Billings SO2 Redesignation Request, at
23.

                                       Table 3--Billings SO2 Nonattainment Area SO2 Projected Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2 Emissions (tons).....................................   1433     460       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA considers the inventory projection of zero emissions
sufficient to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is
therefore also proposing to find that the State's ``Maintenance
Demonstration'' requirement is met based on this projected emissions
inventory.
d. Monitoring Network
    Montana has committed to continue operating the Coburn Road monitor
at its current location in the Billings SO2 nonattainment
area. The State also committed to operating the monitor in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, and have thus addressed the
requirement for monitoring. The EPA approved Montana's monitoring plan
on January 13, 2015. The EPA is proposing to find that Montana's
maintenance plan meets the ``Monitoring Network'' requirement.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Each air agency should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and maintain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The air agency's submittal should indicate
how it will track the progress of the maintenance plan for the area
either through air quality monitoring or modeling.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 2010 SO2 Guidance at 67-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Montana has the legal authority to enforce and
implement the maintenance plan for the Billings 2010 SO2
nonattainment area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement,
and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures
determined to be necessary to correct future SO2 attainment
problems.\24\ As noted, the State will track the progress of the
maintenance plan by continuing to operate the Coburn Road monitor. For
these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that Montana's maintenance
plan meets the ``Verification of Continued Attainment'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA last determined that Montana's SIP was sufficient to
meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA on July 30, 2013
(78 FR 45864).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as the EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state
should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan
must also include a requirement that a state will implement all
measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained
in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance
with section 175A(d).
    The contingency plan includes a triggering mechanism to determine
when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and
implementing appropriate control measures. The State listed two types
of triggers of its contingency plan. The first, a ``warning level
response,'' will be triggered by a 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum SO2 values greater than 65 ppb in a single calendar
year. The second, an ``action level response,'' is triggered when such
a value exceeds 70 ppb in a single calendar year.
    If the warning level response is triggered, the State must conduct
a study to determine whether the SO2 values near the level
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) are the result of a trend,
and if so, what control measures are necessary to reverse that trend.
The implementation of the control measures stemming from a warning
level response will take place no later than 18 months after the end of
the calendar year in which a determination requiring control measures
was made. If the action level response is triggered and is not found to
be due to an exceptional event as defined at 40 CFR part 50.1(j), the
State will work with the entity or entities believed to be responsible
for the high levels of SO2 to evaluate control measures
necessary to ensure future attainment of the NAAQS. Montana must submit
to the EPA its analysis demonstrating that the proposed control
measures are adequate to ensure continued maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the area or to return the area to attainment of
the NAAQS. The implementation of the control measures stemming from an
action level response will take place no later than 18 months after the
end of the calendar year in which the action level response was
prompted. Montana noted that, since the only source in the
nonattainment area has shut down, it is not possible at this time to
develop specific contingency measures until the cause of the elevated
concentrations is known. The EPA is proposing to find that Montana's
maintenance plan meets the ``Contingency Measures'' requirement.
    The EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The
attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP
revision submitted by Montana for the Billings 2010 SO2
nonattainment area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA
and is approvable.

V. What are the actions the EPA is proposing to take?

    The EPA is proposing to take the following four separate but
related actions: (1) Determine that the Billings SO2
nonattainment area is attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
(2) Approve Montana's plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS (maintenance plan); (3) Redesignate the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS; and (4) determine that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area has clean monitoring data. Section IV
of this notice provides a discussion of each of these proposed actions.
    The EPA proposes to determine that the Billings SO2
nonattainment area has attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard
by the October 4, 2018, required attainment date. This determination is
based on complete, quality-assured, and

certified monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. The EPA
is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan under the 2010 NAAQS
for the Billings SO2 nonattainment area into the Montana SIP
(under CAA section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
and includes a process to develop contingency measures to remedy any
future violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and
procedures for evaluation of potential violations.
    Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area has met the criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. On this basis, the EPA is
proposing to approve Montana's redesignation request for the area.
Final approval of Montana's redesignation request would change the
legal designation of the portion of Yellowstone County designated
nonattainment at 40 CFR part 81.327 to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    The EPA is also proposing to determine that the Billings
SO2 nonattainment area has attaining monitoring data for the
2010 SO2 primary NAAQS based on the most recent complete
three-year period (2012-2014) design value period that meets the clean
data policy. As noted elsewhere, in the event that EPA does not
finalize the proposed redesignation, EPA may choose to separately
finalize the clean data determination, thereby suspending the
attainment planning-related requirements for the area.
    In this action, the EPA is not proposing to take any action on the
Billings/Laurel SO2 area that was the subject of a SIP Call
(67 FR 22168, May 2, 2002) and for which EPA promulgated a FIP (77 FR
21418, April 21, 2008) under the prior 24-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS and the still-current SO2 secondary NAAQS. EPA is also
not proposing any action to revoke the prior (1971) SO2
primary NAAQS in either the 2010 Billings SO2 nonattainment
area or the larger Billings/Laurel area addressed by the May 2, 2002
SIP Call.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Billings SO2 Redesignation and
Maintenance Plan for action which are identified within this notice of
proposed rulemaking. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this rule's preamble for more
information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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 does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 23, 2016.
Richard D. Buhl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-04900 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P