[Federal Register: September 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 184)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48703-48707]
[DOCID:fr24se09-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0512; FRL-8962-1]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make a determination, under the Clean Air
Act (CAA), that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL-IN)
ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is
based on complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data
for the period of 2006-2008. Preliminary data for 2009 show that the
area continues to attain the standard. EPA is also proposing to approve
a request from the State of Indiana to exempt sources of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) in Lake and Porter Counties from CAA
requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). The
State's NOX RACT waiver request is based on the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data, which
demonstrate that additional reduction of NOX emissions would
not contribute to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. This action proposes to approve
the State's request for a waiver from the NOX RACT
requirements for Lake and Porter Counties under the CAA. In the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is deferring the imposition
of sanctions for the State's failure to submit required NOX
RACT regulations based on this proposed attainment determination while
we complete action on the proposed NOX RACT waiver. This
deferral of sanctions will continue unless EPA determines that the area
is no longer attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. However, if EPA
proposes and takes final action in the future to redesignate the area
to attainment, such action will permanently stop the sanctions clock.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0512, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0512. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects and viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. State Petition
IV. EPA Analysis of the Petition
    A. Has the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Area Attained the
1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
    B. EPA Analysis of the State's NOX RACT Waiver
Petition
V. Sanctions
VI. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
VII. EPA's Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.

    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the proposed rule.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone (O3) is
detrimental to human health. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA
promulgated an eight-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million parts
of air (0.08 ppm). This standard is violated in an area when any ozone
monitor in the area (or in its downwind environs) records eight-hour
ozone concentrations with a three-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations equaling or
exceeding 85 parts per billion parts of air (ppb).
    Section 107 of the CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment
any area that violated the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. The Federal
Register notice promulgating the eight-hour ozone designations and
classifications was published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). In that
EPA rulemaking, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, which
contains Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana, was designated as a
nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, and the
designation became effective on June 15, 2004.
    Ground-level ozone is not generally emitted directly by sources.
Rather, emitted NOX and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone as a
secondary compound, along with other secondary compounds.
NOX and VOC are referred to as ``ozone precursors.''
Reduction of peak ground-level ozone concentrations is achieved through
controlling VOC and NOX emissions.
    The CAA, title 1, part D contains two sets of provisions--subparts
1 and 2--that address planning and emission control requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 contains general, less
prescriptive requirements for all nonattainment areas of any pollutant
governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 contains more specific requirements for
certain ozone nonattainment areas and applies to ozone nonattainment
areas classified under section 181 of the CAA. The Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for
the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
    The subpart 2 ozone plan requirements under the CAA with respect to
control of VOC and NOX emissions depend on the ozone
nonattainment classification of an area. The air quality planning
requirements for the reduction of NOX emissions are set
forth in section 182(f) of the CAA. Section 182(f) requires States with
areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate and
above to adopt and implement the same level of NOX emission
controls for major stationary sources as apply to major stationary
sources of VOC emissions. Section 182(f) also provides that these
NOX emission reduction requirements do not apply to an area
outside of an ozone transport region if EPA determines that additional
reductions of NOX emissions would not contribute to
attainment of the ozone standard in the area. Section 182(f)(1)(A). In
areas where the ozone standard is attained, as demonstrated by
complete, quality-assured air quality data, without the implementation
of the additional section 182(f) NOX emission controls, it
is clear that the additional NOX emission reductions
required by section 182(f) did not contribute to attainment of the
ozone standard.
    On March 17, 2008, EPA notified Thomas W. Easterly, Commissioner,
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), that EPA had
determined that the State of Indiana had failed to submit a
NOX RACT State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Lake
and Porter Counties (the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard). EPA formalized this finding in the Federal Register on March
24, 2008 (73 FR 15416), and that action commenced the sanctions process
outlined by section 179 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31. See 59 FR 39832,
August 4, 1994. Under this process, the new source two-to-one (2:1)
emissions offset sanction would take effect in Lake and Porter Counties
on September 24, 2009. The sanctions clock would run and any imposed
sanctions would remain in effect until either a NOX RACT SIP
revision is submitted to EPA by the State of Indiana and is
affirmatively determined complete by EPA or a NOX control
exemption (waiver) under section 182(f) is granted by EPA. In the Final
Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA has published an interim
final rule to defer sanctions for Lake and Porter Counties based on our
proposed determination that the Counties are attaining the 1997 eight-
hour ozone NAAQS and that the NOX RACT waiver request is
approvable.
    The criteria established for determining the applicability of
section 182(f) NOX emission controls and the evaluation of
section 182(f) NOX emission control waiver requests are set
forth in a January 14, 2005, EPA policy memorandum, ``Guidance on
Limiting Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Requirements Related to 8-
Hour Ozone Implementation,'' from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.

III. State Petition

    On June 5, 2009, IDEM submitted a request for the redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard. As part of this ozone redesignation request, IDEM also
requested an exemption from NOX RACT requirements for Lake
and Porter Counties under section 182(f) of the CAA based on the
monitoring of ozone, which showed attainment of the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone
nonattainment area and at the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site in
Kenosha County, Wisconsin monitoring site.\1\ The NOX
exemption request is based on ozone air quality monitoring data for the
period of 2006-2008, which demonstrate that the 1997 eight-hour ozone
NAAQS has been attained in the area without additional reductions of
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site is outside of
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area, it is
very near the Illinois-Wisconsin border and is considered to be a
peak ozone impact site for VOC and NOX emissions
originating in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone
nonattainment area. The fact that the Chiwaukee Prairie ozone
monitoring site is the ozone design value site for the Chicago-Gary-
Lake County, IL-IN eight-hour ozone nonattainment area is documented
in an enclosure to a December 3, 2003 letter from Thomas V. Skinner,
Regional Administrator, Region 5, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor, State of Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA Analysis of the Petition

A. Has the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Area Attained the 1997
Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS?

    An area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I, based on the most recent
three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data at all ozone monitoring sites in the area and
in its nearby downwind environs. To attain this standard, the average
of the annual fourth-high daily

maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations measured and recorded
at each monitoring site (the monitoring site's ozone design value) over
the most recent three-year period must not exceed the ozone standard.
Based on an ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR 50,
appendix I, the eight-hour ozone standard is attained if the area's
ozone design value \2\ is 0.084 ppm or less. The data must be collected
and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58, and must be recorded
in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should
have remained at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring
period required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more).
The data supporting attainment of the standard must be complete in
accordance with 40 CFR 50, appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area and in its downwind environs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the June 5, 2009, ozone redesignation request, IDEM
summarized the annual fourth-high eight-hour ozone concentrations and
the three-year eight-hour ozone design values for the period of 2003-
2008 for all ozone monitoring sites in Lake and Porter Counties and in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area. This
summary also includes ozone concentration data for the Chiwaukee
Prairie monitoring site in Wisconsin. IDEM notes that the 2006-2008
ozone design values for all monitoring sites are below the 0.084 ppm
ozone attainment level. We have reviewed the data and agree that the
ozone monitoring data for the monitoring sites in the nonattainment
area and for the Chiwaukee Prairie, Wisconsin monitoring site show
attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. The worst-case 2006-
2008 ozone design \3\ for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area is
found at the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site, with a value of 0.078
ppm, below the 0.08 ppm eight-hour ozone standard level. See Table 1
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For an individual ozone monitoring site, the ozone design
value is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations. For any given area, the
area's ozone design value is the worst-case site-specific ozone
design value for all ozone monitoring sites in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour
ozone concentrations and three-year (2006-2008) averages of the annual
fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations for all ozone
monitoring sites in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area and for
the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site. The 2006-2008 monitoring data
cover the most recent three years of quality assured ozone monitoring
data for this area. These representative peak ozone concentrations are
based on 2006-2008 ozone data that have been quality assured and
certified by the States of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

 Table 1--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts per Million (ppm) and Three-
                                                  Year Averages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Three-year
                 Monitoring site                       2006            2007            2008           average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Indiana Monitoring Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary............................................           0.073           0.085           0.062           0.073
Hammond.........................................           0.075           0.077           0.068           0.073
Ogden Dunes.....................................           0.070           0.084           0.069           0.074
Valparaiso......................................           0.071           0.080           0.061           0.070
Whiting.........................................           0.081           0.088           0.062           0.077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Illinois Monitoring Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alsip...........................................           0.078           0.085           0.066           0.076
Chicago-Cheltenham..............................           0.075           0.082           0.066           0.074
Chicago-Adams...................................           0.073           0.084           0.058           0.071
Chicago-Ellis Avenue............................           0.070           0.079           0.063           0.070
Chicago-Ohio Street.............................           0.065           0.075           0.063           0.067
Chicago-Lawndale................................           0.075           0.080           0.066           0.074
Chicago-Hurlbut Street..........................           0.077           0.079           0.063           0.073
Lemont..........................................           0.070           0.085           0.071           0.075
Cicero..........................................           0.060           0.068           0.060           0.062
Northbrook......................................           0.068           0.076           0.063           0.069
Evanston........................................           0.072           0.080           0.058           0.070
Lisle...........................................           0.062           0.072           0.057           0.063
Elgin...........................................           0.062           0.075           0.061           0.066
Waukegan........................................           0.071           0.081           0.061           0.071
Illinois Beach State Park.......................           0.068           0.080           0.067           0.071
Cary............................................           0.057           0.074           0.063           0.064
Essex Road......................................           0.068           0.071           0.057           0.065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Wisconsin Monitoring Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiwaukee Prairie...............................           0.079           0.085           0.069           0.078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of the 2006-2008 ozone concentrations and ozone design
values summarized in Table 1 shows that all of the ozone monitoring
sites for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area, plus the Chiwaukee
Prairie monitoring site in Wisconsin, were attaining the 1997 eight-
hour ozone standard during this period. Therefore, based on the most
recent three years of quality assured ozone monitoring data, the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard has been

attained in this area. Preliminary data for 2009 \4\ indicate that the
area continues to attain the standard. Based on these ozone monitoring
data, EPA is proposing here to determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 eight-hour
ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Quality-assured ozone data for 2009 are generally only
available through June in EPA's Air Quality System for Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin, providing an incomplete picture of the peak
ozone concentrations for all high ozone months in 2009. Nonetheless,
these data, coupled with draft data used to support ozone action
alerts, indicate that no violations of the 1997 eight-hour ozone
NAAQS have been monitored to date in this area in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA Analysis of the State's NOX RACT Waiver Petition

    EPA's 2005 guidance document, ``Guidance on Limiting Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone Implementation,''
sets forth the criteria for demonstrating that further NOX
emission reductions in an ozone nonattainment area will not contribute
to ozone attainment. The guidance provides that three consecutive years
of monitoring data documenting ozone levels attaining the ozone NAAQS
in areas in which a State has not implemented certain NOX
emission controls (see discussion below) is adequate to demonstrate
that the additional NOX emission reductions will not aid in
achieving attainment of the ozone NAAQS. As described in the guidance
document, approval of the NOX emission control exemption is
granted by EPA on a contingent basis. The NOX emission
control exemption continues only as long as the State(s) continues to
monitor attainment of the ozone NAAQS. If, prior to redesignation of
the area to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, the area violates the 1997
eight-hour ozone NAAQS, as defined at 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix I, EPA
will undertake rulemaking to withdraw the NOX RACT emission
control exemption for the area. Upon issuance of a final action
withdrawing the NOX RACT emission control exemption, the
area would once again be subject to the NOX emission control
requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA.
    As noted above, IDEM documented the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations during the period of 2006-2008
for all ozone monitors in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone
nonattainment area and for the Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site in
Kenosha County, Wisconsin in the June 5, 2009, submittal. These data
demonstrate that the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area.
    Indiana has not adopted or implemented the NOX RACT
emission controls required for Lake and Porter Counties under section
182(f). Based on the most recent ozone air quality data and the absence
of these NOX RACT emission controls, IDEM has requested
exemption from the NOX RACT requirements under section
182(f)(1)(A).
    EPA's review of the ozone monitoring data and IDEM's NOX
emission control exemption request shows that Indiana has complied with
the requirements for a NOX RACT exemption under section
182(f) of the CAA consistent with guidelines contained in EPA's January
14, 2005, guidance document. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that
the State of Indiana qualifies for an exemption from NOX
RACT requirements for Lake and Porter Counties.

V. Sanctions

    If EPA takes final action approving IDEM's June 5, 2009,
NOX RACT exemption request, Lake and Porter Counties would
not be subject to the NOX RACT requirement for the duration
of the emission control exemption. Based on our proposed determination
that the area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS and our
proposed approval of the NOX RACT waiver request, in today's
Federal Register we are separately issuing an interim final
determination that it is more likely than not that the State has
corrected the deficiency. That action will defer the imposition of the
2:1 offset sanction that would take effect on September 24, 2009, and
defer the imposition of the highway funding sanction that would take
effect six months following imposition of the offset sanction. The
imposition of sanctions will continue to be deferred if EPA takes final
action determining that the area has attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone
NAAQS and approves the NOX RACT waiver. The area will not be
permanently relieved of the possibility of sanctions until such time as
EPA approves a redesignation request for the area. If, prior to
redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the 1997
eight-hour ozone NAAQS, the NOX RACT exemption is revoked
due to a monitored violation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS
anywhere in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area or at the
Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site, the sanctions clock will restart at
the point it stopped and the imposition of sanctions will no longer be
deferred. If Lake and Porter Counties are redesignated to attainment of
the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS through a final rule by the EPA, the
NOX RACT waiver will become permanent and the sanctions
clock will permanently stop, and any imposed sanctions resulting from
Indiana's failure to submit NOX RACT regulations for Lake
and Porter Counties would no longer apply.

VI. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    The section 182(f) NOX RACT exemption is based on a
finding that additional reductions of NOX would not
contribute to attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment area. This area has
three consecutive years of ozone levels attaining the ozone standard
even though Indiana has not adopted and implemented NOX RACT
in Lake and Porter Counties.
    While EPA is proposing to waive the requirements to control
NOX emissions through NOX RACT in Lake and Porter
Counties on the basis that NOX emission reductions would not
contribute to attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Chicago-Gary-Lake
County, IL-IN area, EPA recognizes that there are other benefits to
controlling NOX emissions. These benefits include reducing
acid deposition, reducing nitrogen deposition in sensitive wetlands,
estuaries, and their watersheds, and mitigating ozone transport to
downwind ozone nonattainment areas. Indiana will continue to be
required to control NOX emissions from certain
NOX sources under other CAA programs, such as the Acid Rain
program in title IV of the CAA, for purposes of achieving these
environmental benefits. This proposed NOX RACT waiver for
Lake and Porter Counties will not affect other existing and pending
NOX emission control requirements for Lake and Porter
Counties needed to achieve these environmental benefits.
    In addition, EPA notes that an approval of this waiver request is
solely for purposes of the CAA requirements to meet the 1997 eight-hour
ozone NAAQS. The waiver would not apply for purposes of the ozone NAAQS
promulgated in 2008 (March 27, 2008, 73 FR 16435) or for purposes of
any future ozone NAAQS EPA may promulgate. To the extent section 182(f)
applies in this area for purposes of the 2008 or any future ozone
NAAQS, the State would need to submit a NOX RACT SIP or
would need to demonstrate that a waiver is appropriate for purposes of
that different ozone NAAQS.

VII. EPA's Proposed Action

    Based on complete, quality-assured ozone data for 2006-2008, and
considering 2009 ozone data available to date, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN ozone nonattainment
area is attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
    EPA is proposing approval of Indiana's request to exempt Lake and
Porter Counties from the section 182(f) NOX RACT
requirement. This proposed approval is based on EPA's review of the
evidence provided by Indiana that the requirements of section
182(f)(1)(A), as elaborated upon in EPA's guidance for section 182(f)
exemptions, have been met for Lake and Porter Counties. In the future,
if EPA determines that a violation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS
has occurred in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area or at the
Chiwaukee Prairie monitoring site in Kenosha County, Wisconsin while
Lake and Porter Counties are designated as nonattainment for the 1997
eight-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will take action to revoke the exemption.
    Final approval of Indiana's NOX RACT exemption request
would continue the deferral of the 2:1 new source offset sanction and
the highway funding sanction that would have applied based on the
finding of failure to submit the NOX RACT regulations issued
by the EPA on March 24, 2009. The deferral would remain in place
contingent upon continued attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN area. If EPA approves a
redesignation request for the area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS,
the sanctions clock will permanently stop at that time. If EPA
determines that there is a violation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS
while Lake and Porter Counties remain designated as nonattainment for
the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, the NOX RACT waiver will no
longer be applicable as of the effective date of any such determination
by EPA. At that time, the sanctions will no longer be deferred and the
sanctions clock will restart at the point at which it stopped. EPA will
provide notice in the Federal Register of any such waiver revocation
and of the restarting of the sanctions clock.

VIII. 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, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this 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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-23042 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79387-79390]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76651; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-149]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates

December 15, 2015.
    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 December 2, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, entitled ``Options
Pricing,'' at Section 2, which governs pricing for NASDAQ members using
the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing
and routing standardized equity and index options, to amend the
Customer \3\ and Professional \4\ Penny Pilot \5\ Options

Rebates to Add Liquidity. The proposed amendments apply to volume from
December 2, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional''
(as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48)).
    \4\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately
marked by Participants.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28,
2008), 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874
(October 23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-
091) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and
extending Penny Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292
(November 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
61455 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-013) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR
25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
65969 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness [sic]
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77
FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through December 31, 2012); 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136
(January 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2013); 69787 (June 18, 2013), 78 FR 37858 (June 24,
2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-082) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2013); 71105 (December 17, 2013), 78 FR 77530 (December
23, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-154) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
June 30, 2014); 79 FR 31151 [sic] (May 23, 2014), 79 FR 31151 (May
30, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-056) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2014); 73686 (December 2, 2014) [sic], 79 FR 71477
(November 25, 2014) [sic] (SR-NASDAQ-2014-115) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2015) and 75283 (June 24, 2015), 80 FR 37347 (June
30, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-063) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot). See
also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled
``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates'' to amend the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity. The proposed
rule change is detailed below.
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity
    Today, the Exchange offers tiered Penny Pilot Options Rebates to
Add Liquidity to Customers and Professionals based on various criteria
with rebates ranging from $0.20 to $0.48 per contract.\6\ Participants
may qualify for Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates
to Add Liquidity by adding a certain amount of liquidity as specified
by each tier.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also infra note 10.
    \7\ Tiers 6 and 7 are calculated based on Total Volume. Total
Volume is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer,
Non-NOM Market Maker and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or removes
liquidity on NOM. See note ``b'' in Section 2(1) of Chapter XV. The
Exchange utilizes data from The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') to determine the total industry customer equity and ETF
options ADV figure. OCC classifies equity and ETF options volume
under the equity options category. Also, both customer and
professional orders that are transacted on options exchanges clear
in the customer range at OCC and therefore both customer and
professional volume would be included in the total industry figure
to calculate rebate tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier 8 of the Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To
Add Liquidity
    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove a
requirement to qualify for this tier. Currently, Tier 8 provides,
``Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny
Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total industry customer equity and
ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month or Participant adds (1)
Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non-Penny Pilot Options of 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month,
(2) the Participant has certified for the Investor Support Program \8\
set forth in Rule 7014, and (3) the Participant qualifies for rebates
under the Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'') Program set forth in Rule
7014.'' The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the third requirement
which requires the Participant to qualify for rebates under the QMM
Program. A QMM is a NASDAQ member that makes a significant contribution
to market quality by providing liquidity at the national best bid and
offer (``NBBO'') in a large number of stocks for a significant portion
of the day.\9\ The QMM Program is an equity program. With this
proposal, the Exchange proposes to continue to pay a $0.48 per contract
\10\ Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity if the Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/
or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month \11\ or
Participant adds (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 30,000 or more
contracts per day in a month and (2) the Participant has certified for
the Investor Support Program set forth in Rule 7014 from December 2,
2015 through December 31, 2015.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a detailed description of the Investor Support Program
or ISP, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63270 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 69489 (November 12, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-141) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness) (the ``ISP Filing''). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63414 (December 2, 2010), 75 FR
76505 (December 8, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-153) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness); and 63628 (January 3, 2011), 76 FR 1201
(January 7, 2011) (NASDAQ-2010-154) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness).
    \9\ In addition, the NASDAQ equity member must avoid imposing
the burdens on NASDAQ and its market participants that may be
associated with excessive rates of entry of orders away from the
inside and/or order cancellation. The designation ``QMM'' reflects
the QMM's commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to
market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at the NBBO
in a large number of securities. In return for its contributions,
certain financial benefits are provided to a QMM with respect to a
particular MPID (a ``QMM MPID''), as described under Rule 7014(e).
    \10\ The Exchange offers Participants an opportunity to increase
the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers
in note c, which states, ``Participants that: (1) Add Customer,
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of
1.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV
contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.02 per
contract Penny Pilot Options Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity for
each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that
month; or (2) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive
an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer Rebate
to Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options in that month; or (3) (a) add Customer, Professional,
Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month and (b) has added liquidity in all securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.10% or more
of Consolidated Volume in a month will receive an additional $0.03
per contract Penny Pilot Options Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity
for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in
a month. Consolidated Volume shall mean the total consolidated
volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by
all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in
equity securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less
than one round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume
and the extent of an equity member's trading activity, expressed as
a percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the
annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be
excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's
trading activity.''
    \11\ Participants have two ways to qualify for the Tier 8
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity.
    \12\ Monthly volume from December 1, 2015 will not count toward
the calculation of the Tier 8 rebate with respect to the December 2,
2015 through December 31, 2015 time period. The month will be
calculated in two time periods.

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

    The Exchange believes that removing the requirement to qualify for
the QMM Program to earn the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny
Pilot Option Rebate to Add Liquidity will encourage Participants to add
even more liquidity on NOM to specifically qualify for the Tier 8
rebate.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. Customer volume is important because it continues
to attract liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market
participants. Further, with respect to Professional liquidity, the
Exchange initially established Professional pricing in order to ``. . .
bring additional revenue to the Exchange.'' \15\ The Exchange noted in
the Professional Filing that it believes ``. . . that the increased
revenue from the proposal would assist the Exchange to recoup fixed
costs.''\16\ Further, the Exchange noted in that filing that it
believes that establishing separate pricing for a Professional, which
ranges between that of a Customer and market maker, accomplishes this
objective.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \16\ See Professional Filing.
    \17\ See Professional Filing. The Exchange also [sic] in the
Professional Filing that it believes the role of the retail Customer
in the marketplace is distinct from that of the Professional and the
Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted for this distinction
by pricing each market participant according to their roles and
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity
Tier 8 of the Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To
Add Liquidity
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
requirement to qualify for the QMM Program to earn the Tier 8 rebate is
reasonable, because removing the requirement to qualify for the QMM
Program should encourage Participants to add even more liquidity on NOM
to specifically qualify for the Tier 8 rebate. The Exchange currently
requires Participants to add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/
or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month to
qualify for the Tier 8 rebate. Also, a Participant could qualify for a
Tier 8 rebate, today, by that [sic] adding (1) [sic] Customer and/or
Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
Options of 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month and certifies
for the Investor Support Program set forth in Rule 7014 may also
qualify for the rebate. The Exchange's proposal would eliminate the
necessity to qualify for two equity programs, the Investor Support and
QMM Program. The Exchange believes that heightened volume requirement
already present in the requirements to qualify for Tier 8, as compared
with other tier volume requirements, combined with the requirement to
continue to certify for the Investor Support Program will continue to
incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of
qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume, which liquidity will
benefit other market participants by providing them the opportunity to
interact with that liquidity. Moreover, the incentive has the potential
to make the applicable higher rebate available to a wider range of
market participants with the removal of the QMM Program as a means of
qualification.
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Participants to qualify for the
highest Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add
Liquidity Tier of $0.48 per contract, by adding volume from December 2,
2015 through December 31, 2015,\18\ which criteria continue to include
the addition of options and equity volume, is reasonable because the
Exchange is encouraging market participants to send order flow to both
the options and equity markets to receive the rebate. Incentivizing
Participants to add options liquidity through the payment of an
additional rebate is not novel as, today, Tier 8 permits the additional
[sic] of equity volume to qualify for this rebate. The concept of
participating in the equities market as a means to qualify for an
options rebate exists today. This participation benefits the Nasdaq
Market Center as well as the NOM market by incentivizing order flow to
these markets. This rebate recognizes the prevalence of trading in
which members simultaneously trade different asset classes within the
same strategy. Participants will continue to be required to add
liquidity to both the options and equities requirement if they qualify
for the Tier 8 rebate utilizing the second method.\19\ Because cash
equities and options markets are linked, with liquidity and trading
patterns on one market affecting those on the other, the Exchange
believes that pricing incentives that encourage market participant
activity in NOM also support price discovery and liquidity provision in
the Nasdaq Market Center. Further, because the requirements to qualify
for Tier 8 requires significant levels of liquidity provision, which
benefits all market participants, and because activity in NOM also
supports price discovery and liquidity provision in the Nasdaq Market
Center due to the increasing propensity of market participants to be
active in both markets and the influence of each market on the pricing
of securities in the other, the remaining requirements to qualify for
the Tier 8 rebate continue to be reasonable, notwithstanding the
elimination of the QMM Program requirement. Finally, other options
exchanges today pay rebates to participants that add order [sic] both
options and equity order flow.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Monthly volume from December 1, 2015 will not count toward
the calculation of the Tier 8 rebate with respect to the December 2,
2015 through December 31, 2105 time period. The month will be
calculated in two time periods.
    \19\ There are two ways to qualify for the Tier 8 rebate, as
amended by this proposal, either: (1) Participant adds Customer,
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options
above 0.75% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option
ADV contracts per day in a month; or (2) Participant adds Customer
and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month
and the Participant has certified for the Investor Support Program
set forth in Rule 7014 from December 2, 2015 through December 31,
2015.
    \20\ BATS Exchange Inc. (``BATS'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. ([sic]
NYSE Arca'') offer Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers on its equity market.
See BATS BZX Exchange Fee Schedule. See also NYSE Arca Equities
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services and NYSE Arca
Options Fees and Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
requirement to qualify for the QMM Program to earn the Tier 8 rebate is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Participants may
qualify for Tier 8.

Qualifying Participants will be uniformly paid a $0.48 per contract
rebate, provided the requirements are met for the time period from
December 2, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

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

    NASDAQ 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.
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity
Tier 8 of the Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To
Add Liquidity
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
requirement to qualify for the QMM Program to earn the Tier 8 rebate
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all
Participants are eligible to qualify for the Tier 8 Customer or
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity, provided they meet the
qualifications. Further, the Tier 8 rebate will be uniformly paid to
those Participants that are eligible for the rebate. Moreover, the
changes have the potential to make the applicable incentives available
to a wider range of market participants with the removal of the QMM
Program.
    Furthermore, continuing to incentivize Participants to add not only
options, but equities volume does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because cash equities and options markets are
linked, with liquidity and trading patterns on one market affecting
those on the other, the Exchange believes that pricing incentives that
encourage market participant activity in NOM also support price
discovery and liquidity provision in the Nasdaq Market Center. Further,
the pricing incentives require significant levels of liquidity
provision, which benefits all market participants on NOM and the Nasdaq
Market Center.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-149 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-NASDAQ-2015-149. 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 offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-
149, and should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31922 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 72348]
[DOCID:fr20de07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-3113-001]

McClendon, Stan; Notice of Filing

December 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 12, 2007, pursuant to section 305(b)
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2006), Part 45 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45 (2006),
and Order No. 664, Commission Authorization to Hold Interlocking
Positions, 112 FERC ]61,298 (2005); order on reh'g, 114 FERC ]61,142
(2006), Stan McClendon filed a revised page 7 of his application for
authorization to hold interlocking positions. The revision reflected on
this page eliminates language relating to the confidential nature of
Mr. McClendon's estimated 2007 compensation from Golden Spread and
inserts in lieu thereof the estimated value for that compensation.
    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 party 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 14 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 Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 26, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24659 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P