[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37820-37822]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72483; File No. SR-BOX-2014-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Interpretive Material to Rule 5050 (Series of Options Contracts Open
for Trading) and Rule 6090 (Terms of Index Options Contracts) To
Introduce Finer Strike Price Intervals for Standard Expiration
Contracts in Option Classes That Also Have Short Term Options Listed on
Them

June 26, 2014.
    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 June, 25, 2014, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``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 self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 interpretive material to Rule 5050
(Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) and Rule 6090 (Terms of
Index Options Contracts) to introduce finer strike price intervals for
standard expiration contracts in option classes that also have short
term options listed on them (``related non-short term options''). The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend interpretive material to Rule 5050
and Rule 6090 to introduce finer strike price intervals for related
non-short term options. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend
its rules to permit the listing of related non-short term options
during the month prior to expiration in the same strike price intervals
as allowed for short term option series. This is a competitive filing
that is based on a proposal recently submitted by the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72098 (May 6, 2014),
79 FR 27006 (May 12, 2014) (Notice of Filing SR-ISE-2014-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current rules, the Exchange may list options
in the Short Term Option (``STO'' or ``weekly'') Program in up to fifty
option classes,\4\ including up to thirty index option classes,\5\ in
addition to option classes that are selected by other securities
exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
For each of these option classes, the Exchange may list five short term
option expiration dates at any given time, not counting monthly or
quarterly expirations.\6\ Specifically, on any Thursday or Friday that
is a business day, the Exchange may list short term option series in
designated option classes that expire at the close of business on each
of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in
which monthly or quarterly options expire.\7\ These short term option
series, which can be several weeks or more from expiration, may be
listed in strike price intervals of $0.50, $1, or $2.50, with the finer
strike price intervals being offered for lower priced securities, and
for options that trade in the Exchange's dollar strike program.\8\ More
specifically, the Exchange may list short term options in $0.50
intervals for strike prices less than $75, or for option classes that
trade in one dollar increments in the related non-short term option, $1
intervals for strike prices that are between $75 and $150, and $2.50
intervals for strike prices above $150.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See IM-5050-6(b)(1) to Rule 5050.
    \5\ See IM-6090-2(b)(1) to Rule 6090.
    \6\ See IM-5050-6(a) to Rule 5050 and IM-6090-2(a) to Rule 6090.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See IM-5050-6(b)(5) to Rule 5050 and IM-6090-2(b)(5) to Rule
6090.
    \9\ Id. Strike price intervals of $2.50 are only available for
non-index options. Short term index option contracts are subject to
the same strike price intervals as non-short term options for strike
prices above $150. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71188
(December 26, 2013), 79 FR 166 (January 2, 2014) (Notice of Filing
SR-BOX-2013-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may also list standard expiration contracts, which are
listed in accordance with the regular monthly expiration cycle. These
standard expiration contracts must be listed in wider strike price
intervals of $2.50, $5, or $10,\10\ though the Exchange also operates
strike price programs, such as the dollar strike program mentioned
above,\11\ that allow the Exchange to list a limited number of option
classes in finer strike price intervals. In general, the Exchange must
list standard expiration contracts in $2.50 intervals for strike prices
of $25 or less, $5 intervals for strike prices greater than $25, and
$10 intervals for strike prices greater than $200.\12\ During the week
prior to expiration only, the Exchange is permitted to list related
non-short term option contracts in the narrower strike price intervals
available for short term option series.\13\ Since this exception to the
standard strike price intervals is available only during the week prior
to expiration, however, standard expiration contracts regularly trade
at significantly wider intervals than their weekly counterparts, as
illustrated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 5050(d).
    \11\ See IM-5050-2 to Rule 5050, which allows the Exchange to
designate up to 150 option classes on individual stocks to be traded
in $1 strike price intervals where the strike price is between $50
and $1. See also IM-5050-3 to Rule 5050 ($2.50 Strike Price Program)
and IM-5050-5 to Rule 5050 ($0.50 Strike Program).
    \12\ See Rule 5050(d).
    \13\ See IM-5050-6(b)(5) to Rule 5050 and IM-6090-2(b)(5) to
Rule 6090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume ABC is trading at $56.54 and the monthly
expiration contract is three weeks to expiration. Assume also that the
Exchange has listed all available short term option expirations and
thus has short term option series listed on ABC for weeks one, two,
four, five, and six. Each of the

five weekly ABC expiration dates can be listed with strike prices in
$0.50 intervals, including, for example, the $56.50 at-the- money
strike. Because the monthly expiration contract has three weeks to
expiration, however, the near-the-money strikes must be listed in $5
intervals unless those options are eligible for one of the Exchange's
other strike price programs. In this instance, that would mean that
investors would be limited to choosing, for example, between the $55
and $60 strike prices instead of the $56.50 at-the-money strike
available for short term options. This is the case even though
contracts on the same option class that expire both several weeks
before and several weeks after the monthly expiration are eligible for
finer strike price intervals. Under the proposed rule change, the
Exchange would be permitted to list the related non-short term option
on ABC, which is less than a month to expiration, in the same strike
price intervals as allowed for short term option series. Thus, the
Exchange would be able to list, and investors would be able to trade,
all expirations described above with the same uniform $0.50 strike
price interval.
    As proposed, the Exchange would be permitted to begin listing the
monthly expiration contract in these narrower intervals at any time
during the month prior to expiration, which begins on the first trading
day after the prior month's expiration date, subject to the provisions
of Rule 5050(c). For example, since the April 2014 monthly option
expired on Saturday, April 19, the proposed rule change would allow the
Exchange to list the May 2014 monthly option in short term option
intervals starting Monday, April 21.
    The Exchange believes that introducing consistent strike price
intervals for short term options and related non-short term options
during the month prior to expiration will benefit investors by giving
them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will provide the
investing public and other market participants with additional
opportunities to hedge their investments, thus allowing these investors
to better manage their risk exposure.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\14\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Allowing finer strike
price intervals for related non-short term options will result in a
continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to
closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, standard expiration options currently trade in
wider intervals than their weekly counterparts, except during the week
prior to expiration. This creates a situation where contracts on the
same option class that expire both several weeks before and several
weeks after the standard expiration are eligible to trade in strike
price intervals that the standard expiration contract is not. When the
Exchange originally filed to list related non-short term options in the
same intervals as short term options in the same option class during
the week prior to expiration,\17\ the Exchange was limited to listing
one short term option expiration date at a time. Thus, there was no
inconsistency between standard expiration contracts, which traded in
finer intervals in the week prior to expiration, and short term
options, which were only listed on the week prior to expiration. The
STO Program has since grown in response to customer demand, and the
Exchange is now permitted to list up to five short term option
expiration dates in addition to standard expiration options.\18\ There
is continuing strong customer demand to have the ability to execute
hedging and trading strategies in the finer strike price intervals
available in short term options, and the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will increase market efficiency by harmonizing
strike price intervals for contracts that are close to expiration,
whether those contracts happen to be listed pursuant to weekly or
monthly expiration cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67870 (September
17, 2012), 77 FR 58600 (September 21, 2012) (Notice of Filing SR-
BOX-2012-012).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68361 (December 5,
2012), 77 FR 73729 (December 11, 2012) (Notice of Filing SR-BOX-
2012-020); 71189 (December 26, 2013), 79 FR 163 (January 2, 2014)
(Notice of Filing SR-BOX-2013-60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, in addition to listing standard expiration
contracts in short term option intervals during the expiration week, it
already operates several programs that allow for strike price intervals
for standard expiration contracts that range from $0.50 to $2.50.\19\
The Exchange believes that each of these programs has been successful
but notes that limitations on the number of option classes that may be
selected for each of these programs means that many standard expiration
contracts must still be listed in wider intervals than their short term
option counterparts. For example, the $0.50 strike price program, which
offers the narrowest strike price interval, only permits the Exchange
to designate up to 20 option classes to trade in $0.50 intervals in
addition to option classes selected by other exchanges that employ a
similar program.\20\ Thus, the proposed rules are necessary to fill the
gap between strike price intervals allowed for short term options and
related non-short term options. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by
the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them more flexibility to
closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
    \20\ See IM-5050-5 to Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its Participants
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The
Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will
cause fragmentation of liquidity.
    As explained above, this proposal will afford significant benefits
to market participants, and the market in general, in terms of
significantly greater flexibility and increases in efficient trading
and hedging options. It will also allow the Exchange to compete on
equal footing with STO Programs adopted by other options exchanges, and
in particular ISE, which has recently adopted substantially similar
rules to those proposed here.

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. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to a filing submitted by ISE.\21\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among the options exchanges with respect to STO Programs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in
additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the
investment objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading
and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants,
and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that investors will benefit from the availability of strike price
intervals in standard expiration contracts that match the intervals
currently permitted for short term options with a similar time to
expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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 for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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 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
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will permit
fair competition among the options exchanges with respect to STO
Programs. For this reason, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest; and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with
other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2014-18 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-BOX-2014-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2014-18 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15476 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20936-20937]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0063]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by letter dated March 16,
2023, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 210 (Railroad Noise Emission
Compliance Regulations); 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards);
218 (Railroad Operating Practices); 219 (Control of Alcohol and Drug
Use); 221 (Rear End Marking Device--Passenger, Commuter and Freight
Trains); 223 (Safety Glazing Standards--Locomotives, Passenger Cars and
Cabooses); 225 (Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification,
and Investigations); \1\ 228 (Passenger Train Employee Hours of
Service; Recordkeeping and Reporting; Sleeping Quarters); 229 (Railroad
Locomotive Safety Standards); 231 (Railroad Safety Appliance
Standards); 238 (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards); 239 (Passenger
Train Emergency Preparedness); 240 (Qualification and Certification of
Locomotive Engineers); and 242 (Qualification and Certification of
Conductors). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2008-0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With MATA complying with the Federal Transit Administration
and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's rules
pertaining to injury reporting, MATA seeks continued relief from the
requirements of part 225 regarding the reporting of employee
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, MATA requests to extend its relief from the above
listed CFR parts, as pertaining to its vintage streetcar rapid transit
operation, which includes a 1.5-mile corridor shared with both Canadian
National Railway Company and Amtrak comprising 11 shared highway-rail
grade crossings and one diamond at-grade rail crossing. In support of
its request, MATA states that, since FRA last granted an extension of
relief, by letter dated September 17,

2018,\2\ ``there have been no changes to the training and operations
that affect the terms and conditions of the waiver.'' MATA states that
since the relief was granted in 2008, ``there has not been a reportable
`accident/incident' . . . on the line.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2008-0063-0012.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by June 6, 2023 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-07325 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 60455]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27344]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82323; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the
Hartford Schroders Tax-Aware Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E

December 14, 2017.
    On October 11, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Hartford Schroders Tax-Aware Bond ETF under NYSE Arca
Rule 8.600-E. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 31, 2017.\3\ On November 21, 2017, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81944 (October 25,
2017), 82 FR 50461.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety, is available on the Commission's
website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-99/nysearca201799-2711017-161518.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is December 15, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates January 29, 2018, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27344 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   Re: IPM FF Model William Stevens    to:  Joe Kordzi                                                             10/03/2011 07:22 PM

                                                                   Hide Details

 From: William Stevens/DC/USEPA/US

 To: Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

History:

This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Joe - C1 and C2 are editing oversights (should have been deleted) - non-functional leftovers from  the model from which this FF model was derived. - Bill _____________________ William A Stevens, P.E. Senior Advisor - Power Technologies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Clean Air Markets Division <EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-343-9642

-----Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US wrote: -----   To: William Stevens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US Date: 10/03/2011 06:45PM Subject: IPM FF Model (See attached file: Cost FF S&L 3-11.pdf)

Bill,

Attached is our version (prepared by our contractor assisting us in addressing our OK FIP comments) of the S&L IPM FF spreadsheet.  Table 1 and 2 note constants C1 and C2, which are not defined in the documentation.  Can you assist?  Our contractor's comments are due to us by the end of the week - thanks.

Regards,

Joe

" ... and miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost

     (See attached file: Cost FF IPM 3-11 LN.xls)   (See attached file: Cost FF S&L 3-11.pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56114-56116]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0096]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements: Agency
Information Collection Activity

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on a proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to seek OMB
approval.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2017-
0096 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow
the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues, contact
Barbara Sauers, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NRO-011,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues and background information,
contact Roland (R.T.) Baumann III, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
300, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including 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.
    The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the
request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Form Numbers: N/A (Highway Safety Plan, Annual Report, Assessment).
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act (FAST), Public Law 114-94, authorizes the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue highway
safety grants to States under Chapter 4 of Title 23, U.S.C.
Specifically, these grant programs include the Highway Safety Program
grants (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402), the National Priority Safety
Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405) and a separate grant on
racial profiling data collection contained in a previous authorization
that was revised and restored under the FAST Act (Pub. L. 109-59, Sec.
1906 or Section 1906, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94).
    For all of these grants, as directed in statute, NHTSA uses a
consolidated application process that relies on the Highway Safety Plan
(HSP) States submit under the Section 402 program as a single
application. The information required to be submitted for these grants
includes the HSP consisting of information on the highway safety
planning process, performance report, performance plan, problem
identification, highway safety countermeasure strategies, projects and
funding amounts, certifications and assurances, and application
materials that cover Section 405 grants and the reauthorized Section
1906 grant.\1\ States also must submit an annual report evaluating
their progress in achieving performance targets. In addition, as part
of the statutory criteria for Section 405 grants covering the areas of
occupant protection, traffic safety information system improvement and
impaired driving countermeasures, States may be required to receive
assessments of their State programs in order to receive a

grant.\2\ States must provide information and respond to questions as
part of the assessment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 405 grants cover the following: Occupant Protection
Grants; State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants;
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (including Alcohol-Ignition
Interlock Grants and 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants); Distracted
Driving Grants; Motorcyclist Safety Grants; State Graduated Driver
Licensing Incentive Grants; and Nonmotorized Safety Grants. Section
1906 is a separate racial profiling data collection grant.
    \2\ Under occupant protection grants, one of the criterion that
a State with a lower belt use rate may use to get a grant is to
complete an assessment of its occupant protection program once every
three years (23 U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VI)(aa)); and another
criterion is a comprehensive occupant protection program that
includes a program assessment conducted every five years as one of
its elements (23 U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(V)(aa); 23 CFR
1300.21(e)(5)(i)). Under traffic safety system information system
improvement grants, a State must have an assessment of its highway
safety data and traffic records system once every 5 years in order
to receive a grant (23 U.S.C. 405(c)(3)(E)). Under impaired driving
countermeasure grants, a State with high average impaired driving
fatality rates must have an assessment of its impaired driving
program once every 3 years in order to receive a grant. (23 U.S.C.
405(d)(3)(C)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the statute, NHTSA has implemented an interim final
rule that creates uniform procedures for States to apply for grant
funds (81 FR 32554, May 23, 2016), and will issue a final rule in the
near future. These procedures specify the information that is required
to be submitted to receive a grant and the type of information required
to verify performance under the grants. Under these efforts, NHTSA has
taken actions to streamline the required application procedures,
including the expanded use of an electronic submission process
identified as the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS). This system
will replace the current grants management tracking system and allows
States to apply for and receive grants electronically. NHTSA plans to
introduce an updated version of GMSS for fiscal year 2019.
Implementation will occur after several participating States have
completed system usability testing, and NHTSA has reviewed and
considered any feedback provided.
    As indicated above, States may be required to receive an assessment
of certain covered programs in order to be eligible for some grants
under Section 405. Separate from these requirements, States also may
request assessments in these areas at their discretion. NHTSA uses two
different assessment approaches based on the traffic safety area
covered. For occupant protection and impaired driving, assessments are
based on NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs,
which are required by Congress and periodically updated through a
process that seeks public comment.\3\ State programs are assessed
against these uniform guidelines by a team of subject matter experts.
The assessment team produces a final report with recommendations on how
the State can improve the effectiveness of its program. As part of the
process, States provide written materials in response to requests from
the assessment team and participate in a comprehensive interview
process. For traffic safety information systems, States respond to
questions based on NHTSA's Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory
(DOT HS 811 644), which describes an ideal traffic records system. The
questions cover nine topical areas and examine how well a State plans,
collects, manages, and integrates information from several State
traffic records systems.\4\ Responses are evaluated by subject matter
experts, and a final report is provided to the State with
recommendations for improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs are
available online at https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/index.htm.
    \4\ The Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory is available
online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/traffic-records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the HSP is the
application for grants each fiscal year. The information is necessary
to determine whether a State satisfies the Federal criteria for grant
awards. The annual report tracks progress in achieving the aims of the
grant program. The information is necessary to verify performance under
the grants and to provide a basis for improvement. As specified in
statute, States may be required to receive an assessment of certain
covered programs. The information provided by a State allows subject
matter experts to provide recommendations for the purpose of improving
the covered areas.
    Description of the Likely Respondents: 57 Respondents (fifty
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Indian
Country).
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information: \5\ The estimated burden
hours for the grant application and annual report part of the
collection of information are based on all eligible respondents each
year for each of the grants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted later, the total number of respondents is based on
every eligible respondent submitting the required information for
every available grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs);
     Section 405 Grants (except Impaired Driving
Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants) and
Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
     Section 405, Impaired Driving Countermeasures,
Motorcyclist Safety and Nonmotorized Grants: 52 (fifty States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    The estimated burden hours for the assessment part of the
collection of information are based on the average number of State
assessments that are carried out each year in each of the covered grant
areas: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Assessment average is based on the total number of
assessments conducted each year and divided by the number of years
since the inception of assessment requirements for certain grants
under MAP-21, Public Law 112-141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 405, Occupant protection grants: 9 assessments;
     Section 405, Traffic safety information system improvement
grants: 11 assessments; and
     Section 405, Impaired driving countermeasure grants: 4
assessments.
    Under the grant application and annual report requirements, we
estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 240 hours to
collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA for the
Section 402 program. We further estimate that it will take each
respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review and submit the
required information to NHTSA for the Section 405 program. For traffic
safety information system improvement grants, we estimate that it takes
165 hours to respond to questions under the assessment. For occupant
protection and impaired driving countermeasures grants, we estimate
that it takes 80 hours to provide the required information and respond
to questions under an assessment. Based on the above information, the
estimated annual burden hours for all respondents are 26,615 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of individuals responsible for
submitting the information is $50.00 per hour, the estimated cost for
each respondent is $23,350 and the estimated total cost for all
respondents is $1,330,750.\7\ These

estimates are based on every eligible respondent submitting the
required information for every available grant. However, not all States
apply for and receive a grant each year under each of these programs.
In addition, under Section 405 grants, some requirements permit States
to submit a single application covering multiple years allowing States
to simply recertify in subsequent years. Considering the agency's steps
to streamline the current submission process, including increased use
of prepopulated information fields in GMSS and greater reliance on
electronic submission in general, these estimates represent the highest
possible burden hours and costs possible for States submitting the
required information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Per hour costs are estimated based on the costs paid to fund
positions within State highway safety offices and represent an
average across several positions that a State might use to collect
and submit grant application information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the
heading of this document, by any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments are due by January 26,
2018.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 20, 2017.
Mary D. Gunnels,
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2017-25563 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12849-12851]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05557]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0050; FRL-9943-59-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Interstate Transport of Lead and Nitrogen Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submittal to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements.
The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the
requirements that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 lead (Pb) and 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0050, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from http://www.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 the disclosure of which 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which 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 at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours
at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and
secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\)
to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964, published November 12, 2008). On
January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 NAAQS at
100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour, supplementing the
existing annual standard (75 FR 6474, published February 9, 2010).
    The CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) address basic SIP
requirements, including but not limited to emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
standards--so-called infrastructure requirements. To help states meet
this statutory requirement, the EPA issued infrastructure guidance for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\1\ Subsequently, on September 13, 2013, the EPA
issued updated infrastructure guidance for multiple standards,
including the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 14,
2011.
    \2\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
requires SIPs to contain good neighbor provisions to prohibit certain
adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate
transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the first two sub-elements of
the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These
sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the applicable air quality standard in any other state.

II. State Submittal

    On October 20, 2015, Oregon made a submittal to address the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
multiple NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2
NAAQS. We note that this action addresses the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb
and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS only. We intend to address the
remainder of the Oregon submittal, including requirements related to
the 2010 one hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS and the 2012 annual fine
particulate matter NAAQS in separate, future actions.
    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing. The Oregon submittal
included public process documentation, including a duly-noticed public
hearing held on August 18, 2015. We find that the process followed by
Oregon in adopting the SIP submittal complies with the procedural
requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's
implementing regulations.

III. EPA Evaluation

A. 2008 Pb NAAQS

    The EPA believes, as noted in the October 14, 2011 infrastructure

guidance, that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from
experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as fine particulate
matter or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases.
    Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source in a state to
emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
standard in another state, the EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial Pb designations
suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are
located more than two miles from a state border generally appear
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state.
    As recommended by the EPA's guidance, Oregon evaluated whether
large sources of Pb are located in close proximity to the border that
have emissions such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in neighboring
states. The state identified no sources of Pb emissions in Oregon
greater than 0.5 tons per year that are also located within two miles
of the border. The submittal also included a review of data from Pb
monitors in bordering states and trends in monitored values in Oregon
and bordering states.
    Compliance with the Pb NAAQS is measured by comparing the maximum
rolling three-month average, over a three-year period, to the level of
the NAAQS. This statistic represents the design value at a specific
monitor. Oregon found that, for the design value period of 2011 through
2013, the only monitors violating the Pb NAAQS in a state bordering
Oregon were those monitors located in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San
Mateo, California. Oregon concluded that it is unlikely that sources in
Oregon will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other state.
    We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to Pb and we agree
with the state's conclusion. 2011 national emissions inventory data
confirm that there are no Oregon sources identified that emit 0.5 tons
per year or more of Pb that are also located within two miles of the
Oregon border.\3\ We also reviewed the most recent data on ambient Pb
levels in neighboring states--that became available after Oregon
conducted its analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2012 through 2014 design value period we found that, for
the purposes of evaluating significant contribution to nonattainment,
there are only two violating monitors in states that border Oregon.\4\
These monitors are located in San Mateo and San Diego, California, and
are approximately 300 and 600 miles from the Oregon border,
respectively. We also reviewed data for the previous two design value
periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--for purposes of
evaluating interference with maintenance. We identified one monitor in
a bordering state that violated the 2008 Pb NAAQS in these previous
periods, but attained the standard in the most recent period of 2012
through 2014. This monitor is located in Los Angeles, California--
approximately 500 miles from the Oregon border. In all instances, none
of these monitors are within sufficient proximity to Oregon to suggest
that Pb emissions from Oregon will contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to potential new sources of Pb, we reviewed provisions
in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP designed to control emissions of
Pb. Oregon generally regulates new sources of Pb through its pre-
construction and operating permit regulations for stationary sources.
Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are found at Oregon
Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New Source Review.
Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit program is found
at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 216--Air
Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed to ensure that
new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the applicable NAAQS.
    Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent
monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
Pb NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS.

B. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    In the submittal, Oregon reviewed monitoring data and trends to
evaluate whether emissions in Oregon significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour
NO2 NAAQS in other states. Compliance with the one hour
NO2 NAAQS is determined by comparing the annual 98th
percentile of the daily maximum one hour concentration values, averaged
over three consecutive years to the level of the NAAQS. This statistic
represents the design value at a specific monitor. Oregon found no
violations of the one hour NO2 NAAQS at any established
monitoring sites in the United States--for the design value period 2011
through 2013. Oregon also reviewed monitoring data from bordering
states. The highest design value was 73 ppb at the San Diego,
California, monitor--well below the 100 ppb level of the standard.
Oregon asserted that a review of daily maximum one hour NO2
concentrations at monitors in Washington, California, Idaho and Nevada
also indicate trends well below the standard.
    With respect to potential new emissions, Oregon cited provisions in
the Oregon SIP that require review of new and modified stationary
sources prior to construction. Planned new and modified major sources
in attainment and unclassifiable areas must conduct air quality
analyses to demonstrate that new emissions, along with emissions from
existing sources, will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
applicable standard. Based on ambient air monitoring data and
provisions in the Oregon SIP that regulate new sources, Oregon
determined that it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from
sources in Oregon will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.
    We reviewed the Oregon submittal with respect to NO2 and
we agree with the state's conclusion. We also reviewed the most recent
data on ambient NO2 levels in neighboring states--that
became available after Oregon conducted its analysis.
    For the purpose of evaluating significant contribution to
nonattainment, we reviewed design values for the period 2012 through
2014 and found no monitors violating the one hour NO2 NAAQS
in the United States.\5\ We also reviewed data for the previous two
design value periods--2010 through 2012 and 2011 through 2013--to

evaluate interference with maintenance. We found no monitors violating
the one hour NO2 NAAQS in these previous periods, as well.
Further, monitored values are well below 100 ppb in states bordering
Oregon--63 ppb was the highest design value for 2012 through 2014, at
the Los Angeles, California, monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also reviewed provisions in the Federally-approved Oregon SIP
designed to control emissions of NOX--of which
NO2 is a subset. Oregon generally regulates emissions of
NOX through its pre-construction permitting and operating
permit regulations. Oregon's pre-construction permitting rules are
found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 224--New
Source Review. Oregon's Federally-enforceable state operating permit
program is found at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division
216--Air Contaminant Discharge Permits. These rules are designed ensure
that new or modified stationary sources will not cause or contribute to
a violation of the applicable NAAQS.
    Based on the Oregon submittal and our review of more recent
monitoring data and provisions in the Oregon SIP, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that Oregon emissions will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
one hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to
approve the Oregon SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the Oregon submittal for the purposes
of meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 one hour NO2 NAAQS. We
intend to address the remainder of the submittal with respect to the
2010 one hour sulfur dioxide and 2012 annual fine particulate matter
NAAQS in separate, future actions.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 Order
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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 2, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-05557 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P