[Federal Register: January 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 17)]
[Rules
and Regulations]
[Page 4469-4471]
[DOCID:fr25ja08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number CGD11-04-002]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary anchorage area,
designated Anchorage 8A, adjacent to existing Anchorage 8 that can be
activated by Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) when the number
of vessels requesting to anchor in Anchorages 8 and 9 exceeds the
capacity of these two anchorages. Anchorage 8A may also be utilized
during any emergency situation. This rule defines its use and location,
and establishes procedures for activating the anchorage area and
notifying the maritime public.

DATES: This rule is effective February 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket CGD11-04-002 and are available for inspection or
copying at Waterways Safety Branch, Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena
Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Eric Ramos, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch at telephone (415)
399-7443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA'' in the Federal Register
on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17119), under docket number CGD11-04-002. Based
on the three comments received, we reduced the size of the originally
proposed Anchorage 8A, and the Coast Guard decided to resubmit the
proposal to the public for further consideration.
    We published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
entitled ``Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA'' in the Federal
Register on October 11, 2007 (72 FR 57901). We received no comments in
response to the SNPRM. No public meeting was requested at any time in
the rulemaking process, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Anchorage 8A is necessary due to the trend toward larger ships
arriving in San Francisco Bay, the growth of faster Marine
Transportation Systems, increased large vessel traffic, and increased
use of Anchorages 8 and 9 in San Francisco Bay. In addition to more
vessels needing to anchor while awaiting the departure of other vessels
at berth, periodic labor strikes and disputes have caused delays in the
turnaround time of cargo, and filled Anchorages 8 and 9 to capacity.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received the following comments in response to the
NPRM. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) requested that a consistency determination be submitted
evaluating the proposal in relation to BCDC Coastal Zone Management
Policies. A 15 CFR 930.35 Negative Determination was submitted to BCDC
on September 18, 2006. In a letter dated October 17, 2006, BCDC
suggested that the Coast Guard consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
regarding threatened or endangered species. A biological

evaluation was submitted to the USFWS and NMFS on November 21, 2006.
    On December 4, 2006, USFWS copied the Coast Guard on a 2004
memorandum in which they found that proposed Anchorage 8A could
adversely affect the endangered California least tern (Stern antillarum
browni). The Coast Guard redefined the size and configuration of the
proposed anchorage based on consultation with USFWS. As a result, USFWS
concurred with the Coast Guard's determination of ``not likely to
adversely affect'' as described below. BCDC also concurred that the
proposed action would be consistent with their Amended Coastal Zone
Management Program for San Francisco Bay.
    NMFS wrote to the Coast Guard on June 4, 2007, that ``based on the
best available scientific information, the NMFS has determined that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed salmonids or
green sturgeon,'' populations which are listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act and which may be present in
the proposed Anchorage 8A area.
    Based on those comments, we reduced the size of proposed Anchorage
8A. The NPRM originally proposed that Anchorage 8A be bounded by the
following lines: Beginning at latitude 37[deg]47'35.5'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'50'' W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude
37[deg]47'05'' N and longitude 122[deg]22'07.5'' W; thence south-
southeasterly to latitude 37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'56'' W; thence easterly along the northern border of
Anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'21.5'' N and longitude
122[deg]19'07'' W; thence northerly to latitude 37[deg]46'34.5'' N and
longitude 122[deg]19'05.5'' W; thence westerly to latitude
37[deg]46'36.5'' N and longitude 122[deg]19'52'' W; thence westerly
along the southern border of Anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]45'40'' N
and longitude 122[deg]21'23'' W; thence northwesterly along the
southwestern border of Anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD
83). The proposed perimeter of the original size of Anchorage 8A was
approximately six and one-half nautical miles.
    The SNPRM proposed that the new perimeter of Anchorage 8A be
approximately four nautical miles and bounded by the following lines:
Beginning at latitude 37[deg]47'35'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'50'' W;
thence south-southwesterly to latitude 37[deg]47'07'' N and longitude
122[deg]22'09'' W; thence south-southeasterly to latitude
37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'57'' W; thence easterly along
the northern border of Anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'26'' N and
longitude 122[deg]20'42'' W; thence northerly to latitude
37[deg]46'38'' N and longitude 122[deg]20'42'' W; thence westerly along
the southern border of Anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]46'41'' N and
longitude 122[deg]21'23'' W; thence northwesterly along the
southwestern border of Anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD
83). The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the SNPRM.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The effect of this regulation will not be significant because the
anchorage will only be used when unusual circumstances require that it
be activated, recreational traffic can still traverse the anchorage
area when necessary, and the temporary anchorage area only takes up a
small portion of San Francisco Bay. In addition, this temporary
anchorage area has been used twice in the past to accommodate vessels
during labor disputes that resulted in Anchorages 8 and 9 being filled
to capacity.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Evaluation above.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation because it establishes an anchorage ground.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 110 to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  110.224-
0
a. In paragraph (d), amend Table 110.224(D)(1) by adding an entry for
``8A'' and adding a new paragraph ``n'' to the Notes section
immediately following the table, and;
0
b. In paragraph (e), re-designate paragraphs (e)(6) through (21) as
paragraphs (e)(7) through (22), and add new paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  110.224  San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait,
Suisun Bay, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and connecting waters,
CA.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                               Table 110.224(D)(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Anchorage No.             General location         Purpose                Specific regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8A..............................  ......do...........  ......do...........  Notes a, b, c, d, e, j, n.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes: * * *
    n. This temporary anchorage will be activated by VTS San Francisco
when Anchorages 8 and 9 are at capacity and additional anchorage
capacity in the vicinity of Alameda is required. VTS will notify a
vessel that this temporary anchorage is activated and available for use
when Anchorages 8 and 9 are full, and a vessel requests permission from
VTS to anchor in Anchorage 8 or 9.
    (e) * * *
    (6) Anchorage No. 8A. In San Francisco Bay bounded by the following
lines: Beginning at latitude 37[deg]47'35'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'50'' W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude
37[deg]47'07'' N and longitude 122[deg]22'09'' W; thence south-
southeasterly to latitude 37[deg]46'30'' N and longitude
122[deg]21'57'' W; thence easterly along the northern border of
Anchorage 9 to latitude 37[deg]46'26'' N and longitude 122[deg]20'42''
W; thence northerly to latitude 37[deg]46'38'' N and longitude
122[deg]20'42'' W; thence westerly along the southern border of
Anchorage 8 to latitude 37[deg]46'41'' N and longitude 122[deg]21'23''
W; thence northwesterly along the southwestern border of Anchorage 8
back to the beginning point (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 20, 2007.
C.E. Bone,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
 [FR Doc. E8-1250 Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10815-10817]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4382]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0416; FRL-9271-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Determination of Attainment for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard: States of Missouri and Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The St. Louis
metropolitan ozone nonattainment area includes the counties of
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. Louis
City in Missouri; and the counties of Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and
Jersey in Illinois. This proposed determination is based on three years
of complete, quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data for
Missouri and Illinois for the 2008 through 2010 ozone seasons showing
attainment of the NAAQS at all ozone monitoring sites in the
nonattainment area. If EPA finalizes its proposed determination, it
will suspend the obligation to submit certain ozone attainment
demonstration requirements, along with other requirements related to
the attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments regarding the Missouri portion of the
St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
R07-OAR-2010-0416, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: Lachala Kemp, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Submit your comments regarding the Illinois portion of the St.
Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-0416, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2010-0146. 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
or viruses.
    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, 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 Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Region 7 contact Lachala Kemp, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region
5 contact Edward Doty, Attaining Planning and Maintenance Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,
60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following questions:

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the effect of this action?
IV. EPA's proposed action?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to 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 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and
substitute language for your requested change.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data you used.
    5. If you estimate potential cost 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 action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA received a request from the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources to determine that the St. Louis metropolitan
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm). This request is based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality assured ambient air monitoring data
for Missouri and Illinois showing that the area has attained the NAAQS
during the 2008-2010 monitoring period.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. On January 6, 2010, EPA again addressed
this 2008 revised standard and proposed to set the primary 8-hour ozone
standard within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075
ppm. EPA is working to complete reconsideration of the standard and
thereafter will proceed with designations. Today's proposed rulemaking
relates only to a determination of attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and is not affected by the ongoing process of reconsidering
the revised 2010 standard.
    The monitors and design values are displayed in Table 1. The table
summarizes the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations and their 3-year (2008-2010) averages for all monitors
in the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan nonattainment area. These data
reflect peak ozone concentrations quality assured and reported by the
States of Illinois and Missouri.

             Table 1--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and 3-Year Averages in ppm for the St. Louis (MO-IL) Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008  4th   2009  4th   2010  4th   2008-2010
                State                                 County                           Monitor               high        high        high       average
                                                                                (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)       (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois.............................  Jersey..............................  Jerseyville, 17-083-1001...       0.069       0.068       0.072       0.069
                                       Madison.............................  Alton, 17-119-0008.........       0.068       0.067       0.080       0.071
                                                                             Maryville, 17-119-1009.....       0.070       0.074       0.074       0.072
                                                                             Wood River, 17-119-3007....       0.067       0.066       0.070       0.067
                                       St. Clair...........................  East St. Louis, 17-163-0010       0.064       0.069       0.072       0.068
Missouri.............................  Jefferson...........................  Arnold West, 29-099-00019..        0.70       0.070       0.077       0.072
                                       St. Charles.........................  Orchard Farm, 29-183-1004..       0.072       0.073       0.077       0.074
                                                                             West Alton, 29-183-1002....       0.076       0.071       0.084       0.077
                                       St. Louis...........................  Maryland Heights, 29-189-         0.069       0.070       0.076       0.071
                                                                              0014.
                                                                             Pacific, 29-189-0005.......       0.064       0.064       0.069       0.065
                                       St. Louis City......................  Blair Street, 29-510-0085..       0.073       0.065       0.071       0.069
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of the 2008-2010 ozone monitoring data in the nonattainment
area shows that all sites were attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during this period. Therefore, based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality assured ozone monitoring data, EPA is proposing to
determine that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard has been attained in the
St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan ozone nonattainment area.

III. What is the effect of this action?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis metropolitan 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area consisting of both the Missouri and
Illinois portions of the area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA finalizes this
determination, certain attainment demonstration requirements and
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIP
requirements related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be
suspended as to the St. Louis nonattainment area. Under 40 CFR 51.918,
a final determination that the area has met the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard suspends the State's obligation to submit requirements related
to attainment, for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment
under CAA section 107(d)(3), because Missouri and Illinois do not have
approved maintenance plans as required under section 175A of the CAA,
nor has EPA made a determination that the area has met the other
requirements for redesignation. The ozone classification and
designation status of the area remains moderate nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as a redesignation request and
maintenance plan are submitted to EPA and EPA determines that it meets
the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking
in the Federal Register, that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, the basis for the suspension of these requirements
would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address
the pertinent requirements.

IV. EPA's proposed action?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone standard based on three years of complete, quality assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for Missouri and Illinois for the
2008-2010 ozone seasons. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA finalizes
this determination, the requirements for Missouri and Illinois to
submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available
control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, and contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9), and any other planning SIP related to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the St. Louis
Metropolitan area would be suspended. This suspension of requirements
would be effective as long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. This action addresses only the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 ppm, and does not address any subsequent revisions to
the standard.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal Requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore,
this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed 8-hour ozone clean NAAQS data
determination for the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    Dated: February 16, 2011.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-4382 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63976-63977]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26531]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65517; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-097]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

October 7, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 3, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule regarding the
Marketing Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program to extend for an
additional three months a pilot program it implemented on December 1,
2010,\3\ and extended on April 1, 2011 \4\ and July 1, 2011 \5\
relating to the assessment of the marketing fee in the SPY option
class. Specifically, CBOE previously determined not to assess the
marketing fee on electronic transactions in SPY options, except that it
would continue to assess the marketing fee on electronic transactions
resulting from its Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') pursuant
to CBOE Rule 6.74A and transactions in open outcry (the ``Waiver'').
This pilot program is scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2011, and
CBOE now proposes to extend it until December 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63470 (December 8,
2010), 75 FR 78284 (December 15, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-108).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64212 (April 6,
2011), 76 FR 20411 (April 12, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-033).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64818 (July 6,
2011), 76 FR 40978 (July 12, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CBOE stated in its rule filing establishing this three month
pilot program, this proposed change is intended to attract more
customer volume to the Exchange in the SPY option class and to allow
CBOE market-makers to better compete for order flow. CBOE noted that
the SPY option class is unique in the manner in which it trades and is
one of the most active option classes. CBOE also noted that DPMs and
Preferred Market-Makers can utilize the marketing fee funds to attract
orders from payment accepting firms that are executed in AIM and in
open outcry. Finally, CBOE noted that it believes that the marketing
fee funds received by payment accepting firms may be used to offset
transaction and other costs related to the execution of an order in AIM
and in open outcry, including in the SPY option class. CBOE believes
that the current demographics of electronic SPY option order flow is
more driven by the displayed best bid or offer (``BBO'') and size than
payment for order flow considerations, and thus assessment of the
marketing fee for those transactions is not a differentiator at this
time.
    For the reasons noted above, CBOE believes that it would make sense
to extend the pilot program until December 31, 2011. CBOE believes that
it is beneficial to continue to assess the fee on the limited bases as
proposed and will continue to enable CBOE to compete for order flow in
the SPY option class. However, because the SPY option class is unique
in the manner in which it trades and is one of the most active option
classes, CBOE would like to continue to evaluate for an additional
three months the effect of not assessing the fee on all electronic
transactions in the SPY option class, except for transactions resulting
from AIM and in open outcry.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to remove the
security EEM from a list of options on whom the marketing fee to be
collected is $0.00. EEM is the acronym for the exchange-traded fund
(``ETF'') iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund. The Exchange wishes
to remove EEM from the abovementioned list. Hereafter, the marketing
fee for EEM transactions would be $0.25 per contract, as it is with
nearly all other ETFs. The purpose of this change is to increase volume
on EEM options. By assessing a marketing fee on EEM transactions, the
Exchange will be able to use the money collected to attract volume,
pursuant to the Exchange's marketing fee plan. The Exchange believes
that the demographics of EEM options order flow is inclined to seek
economic considerations such as payment for order flow, so a marketing
fee for EEM trades is necessary to attract EEM volume and liquidity.

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change to extend the Waiver is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Trading Permit Holders in that it is intended to attract more customer
volume on the Exchange in SPY options. The SPY option class is one of
the most active and liquid classes and trades with a significant
electronic trading volume. Because of its current trading profile, CBOE
believes it might be better able to attract electronic liquidity by not
assessing the marketing fee on electronic SPY transactions and
therefore proposes to extend the current waiver. However, CBOE believes
that continuing to collect the marketing fee on open outcry
transactions, as well as electronic orders submitted to AIM for price
improvement, from market makers that trade with customer orders from
payment accepting firms would continue to attract liquidity in SPY to
the floor and AIM mechanism, respectively. Accordingly, CBOE believes
continuing the waiver is equitable because it reflects the trading
profile of SPY and is designed and intended to attract additional order
flow in SPY to the Exchange, which would benefit all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change to change the marketing fee assessed on
EEM transactions furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Trading Permit Holders and other persons using Exchange facilities. The
amount of the fee, $0.25 per contract, is reasonable, as it is the same
amount as is charged for transactions in other ETFs. The assessment of
the fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
designed and intended to attract additional order flow in EEM to the
Exchange, which would increase liquidity and benefit all market
participants, and because the same fee is assessed similar transactions
in nearly all other ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \10\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-097 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-097. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such 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-CBOE-2011-097, and should be submitted on or before
November 4, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26531 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P