[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78115-78123]
[DOCID:fr28de06-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0009; FRL-8262-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve two revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. These revisions consist of changes to Arizona's
Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection Programs that would
exempt collectible vehicles in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and
collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson metropolitan area,
from emissions testing requirements; an updated performance standard
evaluation for the vehicle emissions inspection program in the Phoenix
area; and new contingency measures. EPA is proposing approval of these
two state implementation plan revisions because they meet all
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations and
because the exemptions would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in the two
affected areas. EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act
obligation to take action on State submittals of revisions to state
implementation plans. The intended effect is to exempt these vehicle
categories from the emissions testing requirements of the State's
vehicle emissions inspection programs as approved for the Phoenix and
Tucson areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before January 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2005-AZ-0009 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> (please alert the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2005-AZ-0009. 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    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
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background
II. Summary of Arizona's SIP Submittals
III. EPA Review of the SIP Revisions
    A. CAA Procedural Provisions
    B. I/M Program Requirements
    1. Vehicle Coverage and Exemptions
    2. Compliance Enforcement
    3. Performance Evaluation
    C. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance
Under CAA Section 110(l)
    1. Ozone
    2. Carbon Monoxide
    3. Particulate Matter
    4. Air Toxics
    5. Conclusion
    D. Contingency Provisions of CAA Section 175A(d)
IV. EPA's Proposed Action and Request For Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Introduction and Background

    In May 1995, EPA approved Arizona's Basic and Enhanced Vehicle
Emissions Inspection/Maintenance (VEI) Programs as meeting the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA
or ``Act'') and EPA's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance rule
(``EPA's I/M rule'' or ``federal I/M rule'') as amended. See 60 FR
22518 (May 8, 1995). A ``basic'' I/M program was required in the Tucson
Air Planning Area carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area (referred to
by Arizona in this context as ``Area B'') and in the Phoenix
metropolitan CO and ozone nonattainment area (referred to as ``Area
A''). The VEI programs were designed to reduce emissions of CO,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX).\1\ At that time, Arizona was not required to have an
``enhanced'' I/M program, although Arizona was implementing most
elements of an enhanced program in Phoenix. Arizona's program, as
implemented in Phoenix, however, was not approved as an enhanced
program, because the program did not satisfy all the requirements in
EPA's I/M rule for enhanced programs. An enhanced I/M program became a
requirement for the Phoenix area when the area was reclassified from
``moderate'' nonattainment to ``serious'' nonattainment for the CO
NAAQS effective August 28, 1996 (61 FR 39343, July 29, 1996), and when
the area was reclassified from ``moderate'' nonattainment to
``serious'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective February
13, 1998 (63 FR 7290, February 13, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Phoenix metropolitan area is also a nonattainment area
for respirable particulate matter (PM10); however, the
VEI program plays a very minor role in the control strategy for this
pollutant. There is no CAA requirement for I/M programs in
PM10 nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Arizona VEI programs were originally approved in May
1995, EPA has amended the federal I/M rule several times to provide
states with more flexibility in designing their programs but also to
require testing of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system. Since that
time, Arizona has also made a number of changes to its enhanced and
basic VEI programs.
    In January 2003, we approved changes to the Arizona VEI programs
submitted to us on July 6, 2001 and April 10, 2002, including the
incorporation of OBD testing, an exemption for the first five model
year vehicles from the programs on a rolling basis, replacement of the
previously-approved remote sensing program in Phoenix with an on-road
testing study, and legislative changes to the waiver provisions. See 68
FR 2912 (January 22, 2003). In our January 2003 final rule, we also
approved the VEI program in the Phoenix area as meeting the enhanced I/
M program performance standard. In today's notice, we propose action on
a statutory change made by the Arizona Legislature to the Arizona VEI
programs to exempt certain categories of vehicles from emissions
testing requirements.

II. Summary of Arizona's SIP Submittals

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted
the most recent statutory changes to its Basic and Enhanced VEI
Programs as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)
on December 23, 2005 (``VEI SIP Revision''). The VEI SIP Revision
submittal includes the SIP revision itself, divided into a non-
regulatory portion, ``Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision,
Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs''
(December 2005), and a regulatory portion, House Bill (HB) 2357, as
well as supporting materials related to legal authority, adoption,
public process and technical analysis.
    HB 2357 amends the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Section 49-542 by
exempting vehicles that are at least 15 years old or are of a unique
and rare design and that carry collectible vehicle insurance that
restricts the mileage and/or use of the vehicle (``collectible
vehicles'') from emissions testing in both Area A (i.e., the Phoenix
area) and Area B (i.e., the Tucson area). In addition, HB 2357 exempts
motorcycles in the Tucson area from emissions testing. Specifically,
the amendments to ARS 49-542 are found in paragraphs or subparagraphs
(J)(2)(k), (J)(2)(l), (Y), and (Z) of that section of code. The changes
to ARS Section 49-542 are self-implementing, which means that they
become effective upon EPA approval as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
    Among the technical materials included in the VEI SIP Revision
submittal package is a report \2\ prepared by ADEQ that evaluates the
impacts of exempting three vehicle categories (vehicles 25 model years
old and older, motorcycles, and collectible vehicles) from the
emissions testing requirements on ambient air quality and on the
ability of Areas A and B (i.e., Phoenix and Tucson, respectively) to
maintain or attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The report concluded that the testing and repair of these vehicle
categories as a whole does provide a significant air quality benefit.
The analysis, however, also identified a subset of vehicle categories
(collectible vehicles in Phoenix and Tucson plus motorcycles in Tucson)
for which the emissions testing requirement does not provide a
significant air quality benefit and for which exemption would not
interfere with continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS or progress
towards the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. HB 2357 was a Legislative response to
the findings in this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Report on Potential Exemptions from Vehicle Emissions
Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible Vehicles, and Vehicles 25 Model
Years Old and Older'' (December 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consultation with EPA concerning the VEI SIP Revision, ADEQ
prepared an updated performance standard evaluation for the VEI program
in the Phoenix area to reflect the new exemption for collectible
vehicles, and developed new contingency measures that are intended to
provide for reinstatement of emissions testing for the newly exempt
vehicle categories in the event that a violation of the carbon monoxide
NAAQS were to be recorded in the Phoenix or Tucson areas. On October 3,
2006, ADEQ adopted and submitted the updated performance standard
evaluation and new contingency measures in a supplemental SIP revision,
entitled, ``Supplement to Final Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance
Programs, December 2005'' (September 2006) (``VEI SIP Supplement''). As
part of the submittal of the VEI SIP Supplement, ADEQ documented the
public participation process that was conducted by ADEQ prior to
adoption and submittal to EPA.

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revisions

A. CAA Procedural Provisions

    CAA section 110(l) requires revisions to a SIP to be adopted by the
state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has promulgated
specific requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.
    On October 20 and 21, 2005, ADEQ published notices in newspapers of
general circulation in the Phoenix and Tucson areas of public hearings
on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to exempt collectible vehicles
in Phoenix and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson from
emissions testing requirements under the Arizona VEI programs (i.e., a
draft VEI SIP Revision). Public hearings were held on November 28, 2005
in Phoenix and November 30, 2005 in Tucson. On December 23, 2005, in
accordance with Arizona law, ADEQ adopted these exemptions as set forth
in ``Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and
Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs'' (December
2005) as a revision to the Arizona SIP and submitted the revision to
EPA for approval.
    ADEQ followed a similar process in adopting and submitting the VEI
SIP Supplement. ADEQ held a public hearing in Tucson on August 30, 2006
and in Phoenix on August 31, 2006 on a draft VEI SIP Supplement and
adopted the VEI SIP Supplement on October 3, 2006 in accordance with
Arizona law prior to submittal to EPA as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
    ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement submittal packages
include evidence of public notice and hearing, ADEQ responses to public
comments, and ADEQ adoption as described above, and, based on review of
these materials, we find that ADEQ has met the procedural requirements
of CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.

B. I/M Program Requirements

    As noted in Section I, Introduction and Background, herein,
Arizona's VEI programs were most recently approved as meeting federal
I/M program requirements on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2912). Although the
Phoenix and Tucson areas have been redesignated to ``attainment'' for
the CO NAAQS, the VEI programs continue to be relied upon to maintain
the CO standard in those areas. Moreover, ``enhanced'' I/M remains an
``applicable requirement'' for the Phoenix area under our final rule
implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f) and
51.905(a)(1)) based on the designation of that area as a nonattainment
area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (and designation as nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour
standard). Thus, to be approved, the VEI programs, as amended and
evaluated herein, must continue to meet the relevant enforceability
requirements for I/M programs in subpart S of 40 CFR part 51 and, for
the Phoenix area with respect to ozone, the enhanced performance
standard in 40 CFR 51.351. In the following paragraphs, we review
ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement to determine whether the
amended VEI programs continue to meet federal I/M program requirements.
The aspects of I/M affected by the submitted revisions to the VEI
programs include vehicle coverage and exemptions, compliance
enforcement, and the performance standard evaluation.
1. Vehicle Coverage and Exemptions
    The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs (including
alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage of all 1968 and later
model year light duty vehicles and trucks. Light duty trucks are not
included in the performance standard for basic I/M programs. Other
levels of coverage may be approved if the

necessary emission reductions are achieved. See 40 CFR 51.356.
    The Arizona VEI programs approved by EPA in 1995 exempt several
categories of vehicles from the emissions testing requirements. Such
vehicle categories included, among others, vehicles manufactured in or
before the 1966 model year and vehicles being sold between motor
vehicle dealers. See 60 FR 22518, 22521 (May 8, 1995). In 2003, we
approved revisions to the VEI programs including an exemption for the
first five model year vehicles on a rolling basis. See 68 FR 2912
(January 22, 2003). The SIP revision we are acting on today would
establish additional vehicle categories that would be exempt from
emissions testing requirements: collectible vehicles in the Phoenix and
Tucson areas and motorcycles in the Tucson area. Based on data for
calendar year 2003, collectible vehicles make up 0.5 percent of the
fleet of vehicles subject to VEI in the Phoenix area, and collectible
vehicles and motorcycles together make up 2.1 percent of the subject
fleet in the Tucson area. See Table 1 below.

       Table 1.--Percentage of Fleet Affected by SIP Revision \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Percent of
                                                  vehicles     vehicle
                                                   tested       fleet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix:
    Total Tested Fleet........................      825,812        100.0
    Estimated Number of Collectible Vehicles..        3,800          0.5
Tucson:
    Total Tested Fleet........................      373,734        100.0
    Estimated Number of Collectible Vehicles..        1,400          0.4
    Number of Motorcycles.....................        6,240         1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From Table 1 on page 4 of the VEI SIP Revision.

    Basic and enhanced I/M programs are not required to test
motorcycles. However, the emissions testing of motorcycles was shown to
have a significant air quality benefit in the Phoenix area, so the
State has not adopted an exemption for motorcycles in that area. The
effect of the new exemptions on the continued ability of the VEI
program in the Phoenix area to meet the enhanced I/M program
performance standard is discussed below in Section III.B.3,
``Performance Evaluation,'' and the effect of the new exemptions on
emissions and ambient air quality in both Phoenix and Tucson is
discussed herein in Section III.C, ``Demonstrating Noninterference With
Attainment And Maintenance Under CAA Section 110(l).''
2. Compliance Enforcement
    Section 51.361 of title 40 of the CFR requires that denial of motor
vehicle registration be the method used to ensure compliance with
enhanced I/M programs. ARS Section 49-542(D) and Arizona Administrative
Code (AAC) R18-2-1007 require that all vehicles must complete a vehicle
emissions inspection to obtain a vehicle registration.
    Collectible vehicles exempt from emissions testing under the
submitted SIP revision are required to have collectible vehicle
insurance. This type of vehicle is ``maintained primarily for use in
car club activities, exhibitions, parades or other functions of public
interest or for a private collection and is used only infrequently for
other purposes'' and ``has a collectible vehicle or classic automobile
insurance coverage that restricts the collectible vehicle mileage or
use, or both, and requires the owner to have another vehicle for
personal use.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See HB 2357, in Appendix A of the VEI SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division
(MVD), will be able to track collectible vehicles in cooperation with
collectible vehicle insurers. Insurers who submit evidence of
collectible vehicle insurance to MVD will have those vehicles
automatically tagged in MVD's database to be exempt from testing at
renewal of registration. Should those vehicles' collectible insurance
be cancelled or not be renewed, MVD will be notified by the insurer and
will send the vehicle owner a letter that the collectible vehicle's
registration will be cancelled. The owner of the vehicle has 14 days
after receipt of the letter from MVD to submit a new policy. If this is
not done, the vehicle's registration is cancelled, as is the exemption
from emissions testing.
    In contrast to collectible vehicles, exemption of motorcycles in
the Tucson area from emissions testing would be straightforward from
the standpoint of compliance enforcement and would not undermine
compliance enforcement for other types of vehicles that continue to be
subject to the emissions testing requirements under the VEI program in
the Tucson area. Owners of motorcycles registered in the Tucson area
will simply receive a registration or re-registration form from MVD
that indicates ``emissions test not required.''
    Therefore, we propose to find that the Arizona VEI programs, as
amended to exempt collectible vehicles in the Phoenix and Tucson areas
and motorcycles in the Tucson area, continue to meet the compliance
enforcement requirements of 40 CFR 51.361.
3. Performance Evaluation
    In our review of ADEQ's VEI SIP Revision submittal, we concluded
that the revision could not be approved without a performance
evaluation demonstrating that the VEI program, as amended to exempt
collectible vehicles, would continue to meet the federal enhanced I/M
performance standard (codified at 40 CFR 51.351) in the Phoenix area.
The need for an updated performance evaluation follows from the fact
that the Phoenix area, which was designated as nonattainment for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS (at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment), is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and that enhanced I/M remains an ``applicable requirement'' for
such areas under our final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(see 40 CFR 51.900(f) and 51.905(a)(1)).
    In response, ADEQ prepared an updated performance evaluation using
the most recent version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model,
MOBILE6.2. This updated evaluation was included in the VEI SIP
Supplement submitted to EPA on October 3, 2006. The VEI SIP Supplement
includes a summary report and paper copies of MOBILE6.2 input and
output files.

    For the updated evaluation, ADEQ developed and applied reduction
factors to exclude collectible vehicles from the fleet tested under the
VEI program as provided for in HB 2357. ADEQ then compared the
emissions reduction benefits from the revised VEI program with the
corresponding benefits that would be achieved under EPA's alternate low
enhanced I/M performance standard.
    The results of ADEQ's analysis are summarized in Table 2 below,
which shows that the emissions reduction benefits achieved by the
Arizona VEI program as amended are higher than those achieved under the
performance standard. The amended Arizona VEI program continues to
achieve greater emissions reductions than the federal model program
because the VEI program includes elements that go beyond federal I/M
requirements. These include a requirement for a one-time only waiver,
an implementation area beyond the nonattainment area boundaries, and
denial of waivers for grossly-emitting vehicles.

 Table 2.--Results of ADEQ's Alternate Low Enhanced Performance Standard
                              Modeling \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2008
                                 VOC    NOX     CO    VOC    NOX     CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M Benefits in Area A (grams/   0.21   0.10   3.66   0.07   0.09   1.40
 mile)........................
I/M Performance Standard         0.16   0.02   2.91   0.04   0.01  1.02
 benefits (grams/mile)........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The emission rates in this table represent the difference between
  the fleet-wide emission rate under the applicable program (i.e.,
  amended Arizona VEI program or EPA's I/M model program) and the
  corresponding emission rate under the no-I/M scenario. See Tables 1,
  2, and 3 of appendix B to the VEI SIP Supplement.

    Based on our review of the VEI SIP Supplement, we find ADEQ's
methods used to update the performance standard evaluation and use of
the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard to be acceptable,
and we find that the VEI program, as amended to exempt collectible
vehicles in the Phoenix area from the emissions testing requirements,
exceeds the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard in the
Phoenix area as required under 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.905(a)(1).
Therefore, we propose to approve the updated performance standard
evaluation for the Phoenix VEI program, as submitted on October 3, 2006
in the VEI SIP Supplement, as a revision to the Phoenix portion of the
Arizona Ozone SIP.

C. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(l) to be approved by EPA.
Section 110(l) states: ``* * *. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this
Act.''
    We interpret section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the CAA
and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. We also interpret section 110(l) to require a demonstration
addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations
may change as a result of the SIP revision. Thus, for example,
modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact NOX
emissions, which may impact PM2.5. The scope and rigor of an
adequate section 110(l) demonstration of noninterference depends on the
air quality status of the area, the potential impact of the revision on
air quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the
applicable CAA requirements.
    As described above, the changes to the Arizona VEI programs that
would occur with EPA approval of the two SIP revision submittals
evaluated herein (i.e., the new exemptions from emissions testing for
collectible vehicles in Phoenix and collectible vehicles and
motorcycles in Tucson) affect both the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
Therefore, EPA needs to review the effect of the exemptions in both of
these areas before we can determine whether we can approve the two SIP
revisions under CAA section 110(l).
    The VEI SIP Revision submittal that seeks exemption of collectible
vehicles from the Phoenix enhanced I/M program and collectible vehicles
and motorcycles from the Tucson basic I/M program includes an
evaluation of the effects of the revisions to the VEI programs on
ozone, carbon monoxide, PM2.5, and air toxics in both
geographic areas. The details of ADEQ's evaluation of the emissions
effects and related ambient air quality impacts of the new exemptions
are contained in ``Report on Potential Exemptions from Vehicle
Emissions Testing for Motorcycles, Collectible Vehicles and Vehicles 25
Model Years Old and Older (December 2004)'' (``2004 Report''), which
was included as Appendix B to the VEI SIP Revision.
    The 2004 report indicates that ADEQ used the latest version of
EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program, MOBILE6.2, to estimate the
emissions effects of the new exemptions. The methods used to gather
data included surveys of collectible vehicle insurers and collectible
vehicle and motorcycle owners, in addition to acquisition of data from
the State vehicle emissions inspections programs, other state agencies,
air quality planning agencies and relevant air quality plans. We find
that ADEQ used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating
the emissions effects of the new exemptions. Table 3 below summarizes
ADEQ's estimates by geographic area, vehicle category, and pollutant in
units of metric tons per day (mtpd). Table 3 also shows the emissions
impact as a percentage of the overall pollutant-specific inventory in
the applicable area.

    Table 3.--VOC and CO Emissions Inventory Impacted by the VEI SIP
                                Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Area-wide   I/M benefit   Percent of
                                      total      from test     areawide
         Vehicle category           emissions    and repair     total
                                    inventory   of vehicles   emissions
                                      (mtpd)    \1\  (mtpd)   inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix:
    Collectible Vehicles:
        VOC......................        328.9         0.03        0.009
        CO.......................        912.3         0.32        0.035
Tucson:
    Collectible Vehicles:
        VOC......................         84.8         0.01        0.012
        CO.......................        598.5         0.14        0.023
    Motorcycles:
        VOC......................         84.8         0.03        0.035
        CO.......................        598.5         0.09       0.015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ I/M Benefit = the reduction in emissions due to the repair of
  vehicles that exceed the prescribed emissions standards in Arizona
  Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-1031.

1. Ozone
    Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted precursor
emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), in the presence of sunlight under the influence of
meteorological and topographical features of an area.
    Phoenix. By rule effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the
Phoenix area as a ``basic'' nonattainment area for the new 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on 2001-2003 air quality monitoring data. See 69 FR 23858
(April 30, 2004). As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the
VEI program in Phoenix would increase VOC emissions by 0.03 metric tons
per day, which represents approximately 0.009% of the overall VOC
emissions inventory in this area under existing conditions. ADEQ did
not estimate NOX emissions, but we agree with ADEQ's
reasoning that any change, positive or negative, in NOX
emissions would be minimal given the small number of vehicles involved,
the fact that repairs to vehicles to reduce VOC and CO emissions often
result in an incremental increase in NOX emissions, and the
small fraction of collectible vehicles (approximately 8 percent)
currently subject to NOX testing (only those that are model
years 1981 and newer).
    These incremental emissions impacts of the VEI SIP Revision would
occur in an area for which overall VOC and NOX emissions are
expected to decline. Specifically, in the Phoenix area, overall VOC
emissions are expected to decrease by 7% between 2006 and 2015 and
overall NOX emissions are expected to decrease by 13% over
the same period.\4\ Moreover, data collected by the ozone monitoring
network in the Phoenix area appears to show that the area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the years 2003-2005.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), ``One-Hour
Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area,'' March 2004, pp. 3-11 and 3-12.
    \5\ See Table 4 in the VEI SIP Revision and see the Quick Look
Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the minimal likely effect of the VEI SIP
Revision on VOC and NOX emissions, the downward trend in
overall ozone precursor emissions, and monitoring data that appears to
show that the area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we find that
exempting collectible vehicles from emissions testing under the VEI
program would not interfere with attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Phoenix area.
    Tucson. EPA included the Tucson area in ``rest of state,'' an area
that we designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the new 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). As indicated in Table 3
above, the revision to the VEI program in Tucson would increase VOC
emissions by 0.04 metric tons per day, which represents approximately
0.047% of the overall VOC emissions inventory in this area under
existing conditions. For the reasons given above for the Phoenix area,
we would expect any change, positive or negative, in NOX
emissions due to the VEI SIP Revision to be minimal.
    These incremental changes in ozone precursor emissions would occur
in an area where the highest three-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum level (i.e., the statistical basis for the NAAQS)
collected among the nine stations comprising the ozone monitoring
network in the Tucson area was approximately 10% below the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (based on 2003-2005 data).\6\ As such, we agree with ADEQ's
conclusion that the slight change in ozone precursor emissions from the
exemption of collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions
testing requirements of the VEI program would not interfere with
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Tucson area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Table 5 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look
Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Carbon Monoxide
    Carbon monoxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion of
fuels. In most urban areas, most of the CO comes from motor vehicle
exhaust.
    Phoenix. In 2005, EPA redesignated the Phoenix area for CO, and
approved a maintenance plan that provides for maintenance of the CO
NAAQS in that area through 2015. See 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70
FR 52926 (September 6, 2005).
    As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in
Phoenix would increase CO emissions by 0.32 metric tons per day, which
represents approximately 0.035% of the overall CO emissions inventory
in this area under existing conditions. The incremental CO emissions
increase of the SIP revision would occur in an area where overall CO
emissions are expected to remain relatively constant over the next 10
years and where ambient CO levels are well below the NAAQS.
Specifically, in the Phoenix area, overall CO emissions are expected to
decrease by only 1% between 2006 and 2015,\7\ and the

highest second-highest value (i.e., the basis for the NAAQS) collected
among the 15 stations comprising the CO monitoring network in the
Phoenix area is 5.1 parts per million (ppm), eight-hour average, or
less than 60% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (based on 2004-2005 data).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Maricopa Association of Governments, ``Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area,'' May 2003, pp. 3-10.
    \8\ See Table 14 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look
Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the minimal estimated increase in CO emissions
due to the VEI SIP Revision, the relatively constant level of overall
CO emissions, and monitoring data that shows that ambient CO levels
remain well below the CO NAAQS, we find that exempting collectible
vehicles from emissions testing under the VEI program would not
interfere with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix
area.
    Tucson. Tucson was designated as a ``not classified'' CO
nonattainment area following the CAA Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR
56694 (November 6, 1991). Arizona implemented its VEI program in the
Tucson area as part of the control strategy to attain and maintain the
CO NAAQS in the area. In 2000, EPA redesignated the Tucson area to
attainment for CO and approved the area's maintenance plan, which
provides for maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 2008. See 65 FR 36353
(June 8, 2000), 65 FR 50651 (August 21, 2000), and 69 FR 12802 (March
18, 2004).
    As indicated in Table 3 above, the revision to the VEI program in
Tucson would increase CO emissions by 0.23 metric tons per day, which
represents approximately 0.038% of the overall CO emissions inventory
in this area under existing conditions. The incremental CO emissions
increase of the SIP revision would occur in an area where ambient CO
levels are well below the NAAQS. Specifically, in the Tucson area the
highest second-highest value (i.e., the basis for the NAAQS) collected
among the six stations comprising the CO monitoring network in the
Tucson area is 2.5 ppm, eight-hour average, or less than 30% of the 8-
hour CO NAAQS (based on 2004-2005 data).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Table 15 of the VEI SIP Revision and the Quick Look
Reports (dated August 14, 2006 and August 31, 2006) included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the minimal estimated increase in CO emissions
due to the VEI SIP Revision and monitoring data that shows that ambient
CO levels remain well below the CO NAAQS, we find that exempting
collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing under the
VEI program would not interfere with continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the Tucson area.
3. Particulate Matter
    EPA has promulgated different NAAQS for particles with a nominal
aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) and for
particles with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers
(microns) or less (PM2.5). Ambient PM10 and
PM2.5 levels consist of directly-emitted particles as well
as secondary particles formed through atmospheric reactions involving
such precursors as NOX and SOX.
    Phoenix. In 1990, the Phoenix area was designated as a ``moderate''
nonattainment for the PM10 NAAQS by operation of law under
the CAA Amendments of 1990. EPA reclassified the area as ``serious'' in
1996. See 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996). In 2002, EPA approved the
``serious area'' PM10 plan, which was intended to provide
for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the Phoenix area by
2006. See 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); certain plan elements re-
approved at 71 FR 43979 (August 3, 2006).
    The Phoenix area PM10 attainment plan relies largely on
control of fugitive dust sources such as paved and unpaved roads,
vacant disturbed lots, and unpaved parking lots. On-road vehicle
exhaust accounts for approximately 2.1% of the annual average area-wide
(directly-emitted) PM10 inventory.\10\ The area continues to
violate both the annual and 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and thus
appears to have failed to meet the PM10 NAAQS by the 2006
attainment date.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Maricopa Association of Governments, ``Revised MAG 1999
Serious Area Particulate Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County
Nonattainment Area,'' February 2000, pp. 8-15.
    \11\ We will make this determination when quality-assured data
for 2006 are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM10 emissions are emitted as a product of incomplete
combustion along with such other pollutants as CO and VOC, and because
the exemption of collectible vehicles from emissions testing
requirements of the VEI program in the Phoenix area would incrementally
increase emissions of the latter pollutants, it would also likely
result in the incremental increase of the former as well. ADEQ did not
quantify the PM10 emissions impact of this new exemption.
However, we can safely conclude that any such impact would be
negligible, even though the area will likely miss its attainment
deadline, given the small number of vehicles involved (see Table 1
herein), the magnitude of the emission impact of other products of
incomplete combustion (see Table 3 herein and related discussion of
ozone and CO above), and the small contribution of the applicable
source category (on-road motor vehicle exhaust) to overall
PM10 emissions in the Phoenix area. Thus, the VEI SIP
Revision would not interfere with attainment of the PM10
NAAQS in the Phoenix area.
    Based on the same rationale, we can also conclude that the
exemption of collectible vehicles from the emissions testing
requirements of the VEI program in the Phoenix area would not interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5, a pollutant for
which the Phoenix area is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
See 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). Ambient PM2.5
concentrations in the Phoenix area are well below the applicable NAAQS.
    Tucson. EPA has included the Tucson area in the ``unclassifiable''
area designation for the PM10 NAAQS and in the county-
specific ``unclassifiable/attainment'' designation (i.e., Pima County)
for the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), 70
FR 944 (January 5, 2005), and 40 CFR 81.303. Ambient PM10
and PM2.5 concentrations in the Tucson area are well below
the applicable NAAQS. For the reasons given above for Phoenix, the
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impact of exemption of
collectible vehicles and motorcycles from emissions testing
requirements would be negligible and would not interfere with continued
attainment of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Tucson area.
4. Air Toxics
    Phoenix and Tucson. Since the CAA does not have ambient air quality
standards for air toxics, the EPA's interpretation of section 110(l) is
that an area's compliance with any applicable MACT standards, as well
as any Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) under sections
112 or 202(l) of the CAA constitutes an acceptable demonstration of
noninterference for air toxics. Motor vehicles are not subject to MACT
standards, and the VEI SIP Revision will not interfere with any Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Programs that apply in the area. For these
reasons, the State thus concludes, and EPA concurs, that the VEI SIP
Revision would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements
relative to air toxics.
5. Conclusion
    Based on the above discussion, EPA concludes that the changes to
the Arizona VEI programs that would occur with EPA approval of the VEI
SIP Revision and VEI SIP Supplement (i.e., the exemptions from
emissions testing for collectible vehicles in the Phoenix

area and collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area) would
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the
Phoenix or Tucson areas and would not interfere with any other
applicable requirement of the Act, and thus, are approvable under CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, we propose to approve statutory exemptions
from emissions testing for collectible vehicles in Phoenix and
collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson, as submitted on
December 23, 2005 in the VEI SIP Revision, as a revision to the Phoenix
and Tucson portions of the Arizona CO and Ozone SIPs.

D. Contingency Provisions of CAA Section 175A(d)

    In 2000, EPA redesignated the Tucson area from nonattainment to
attainment for the CO NAAQS and approved a maintenance plan. See 65 FR
36353 (June 8, 2000), 65 FR 50651 (August 21, 2000), and 69 FR 12802
(March 18, 2004). In 2005, EPA did the same for the Phoenix area. See
70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005) and 70 FR 52926 (September 6, 2005). The CO
maintenance plans for the two areas include contingency elements or
plans that we approved as meeting the requirements of CAA section
175A(d).
    For the Phoenix area, the contingency plan establishes an action
(or trigger) level protective of the NAAQS and identifies several
measures, including expansion of ``Area A'' (the area in which certain
control measures apply), for early implementation as well as
consideration of additional measures on a set schedule following the
triggering event. For the Tucson area, the contingency plan establishes
trigger or action levels as well as schedules for review and collection
of data and consideration of adoption of control measures from a
preselected list of such measures. At the time of redesignation of the
Phoenix and Tucson areas to attainment for the CO NAAQS, the VEI
programs were adopted and approved into the Arizona SIP and were
assumed to continue in effect throughout the maintenance periods.
Moreover, the VEI programs at the time of redesignation of these areas
did not exempt collectible vehicles or motorcycles in either area from
the emissions testing requirements.
    Generally, contingency plans should clearly identify the measures
to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State and
should also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
See EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992. At a
minimum, CAA section 175A(d) requires that the State adopt as
contingency measures all control measures that had been approved in the
SIP for the area prior to redesignation but that the State subsequently
repeals or relaxes. In this instance, because the EPA-approved VEI
emissions testing requirements applied to collectible vehicles and
motorcycles at the time of redesignation for the Phoenix and Tucson
areas, reinstatement of emissions testing for these newly-exempt
vehicle categories must be adopted as contingency measures for the
Phoenix and Tucson CO maintenance areas to comply with CAA section
175A(d).
    ADEQ's VEI SIP Supplement includes two new contingency measures
that establish a binding commitment on ADEQ to request Legislative
action to reinstate emissions testing for collectible vehicles in the
Phoenix area or collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area
should the applicable area experience a violation of the CO NAAQS. See
pages 1 and 2 of the VEI SIP Supplement. Specifically, ADEQ's
contingency measures involve notification to the Legislature by the
October following a violation of the CO NAAQS in the Phoenix or Tucson
areas. After notifying the Legislature, ADEQ will request that the
Arizona Legislature enact new legislation to reinstate the categories
of vehicles exempted through EPA approval of the VEI SIP Revision and
VEI SIP Supplement (i.e., collectible vehicles in Phoenix or
collectible vehicles and motorcycles in Tucson) during the General
Legislative Session that begins in January. ADEQ's request to the
Legislature will call for testing to be renewed for the newly exempt
vehicle categories in the applicable area beginning the January
following the General Legislative Session.
    We view ADEQ's contingency measures in the context of the existing
EPA-approved CO contingency plans for the Phoenix and Tucson areas, and
as such, we find that the plans, as amended to include these new
contingency measures, continue to meet the requirements of CAA section
175A(d), and that the new measures themselves are consistent with
relevant EPA guidance. Therefore, we propose to approve the contingency
measures, as adopted and submitted by ADEQ on October 3, 2006 in the
VEI SIP Supplement, as a revision to the Phoenix and Tucson area
portions of the Arizona CO SIP.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the
revisions to the Arizona SIP submitted by the State of Arizona on
December 23, 2005 and October 3, 2006 concerning the Arizona VEI
programs implemented in the Phoenix and Tucson areas because we find
that the revisions are consistent with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations.
    Specifically, we are proposing to approve exemptions from emissions
testing requirements for collectible vehicles in the Phoenix area and
collectible vehicles and motorcycles in the Tucson area as set forth in
the ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Basic and Enhanced
Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance Programs'' (December 2005) and
ARS Section 49-542 as amended in section 1 of Arizona House Bill 2357,
47th Legislature, 1st Regular Session (2005) and approved by the
Governor on April 13, 2005; and the updated performance standard
evaluation for the Phoenix area and new contingency measures as set
forth in the ``Supplement to Final Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Basic and Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Maintenance
Programs, December 2005'' (September 2006).
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve changes to state law as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve
changes to state law and does not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required

by state law, it 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).
    This proposed rule also 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, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve changes to state law
implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 12, 2006.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
 [FR Doc. E6-22305 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26295-26296]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77711; File No. SR-CHX-2016-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt and Amend Rules To
Permit the Exchange To Initiate CHX SNAP Cycles

April 26, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the functionality of the Exchange's Sub-
second Non-displayed Auction Process (``SNAP'') to permit the Exchange
to initiate the SNAP when certain criteria are met. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 15,
2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comment letters regarding
the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77331 (March 9,
2016), 81 FR 13857 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of the Proposal

    The SNAP is designed to facilitate the bulk trading of a security
within the Exchange's matching system (``Matching System''). The SNAP
is a fully-hidden, on-demand auction for a security that, under the
Exchange's current rules, may be initiated only by the Exchange's
Participants \4\ and may occur only during the Exchange's regular
trading session. During the stages of a SNAP (``CHX SNAP Cycle''), the
Exchange temporarily suspends automated trading on the Exchange for the
security subject to the SNAP. At the conclusion of a CHX SNAP Cycle,
the Exchange transitions back to automated trading for the subject
security. The SNAP Cycle has the following five stages, which are set
forth in CHX Article 18, Rule 1: \5\ (1) Initiating the SNAP; (2) SNAP
Order Acceptance Period; (3) Pricing and Satisfaction Period; (4) Order
Matching Period; and (5) Transition to Open Trading State.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Article 1, Rule 1 of CHX's Rules defines the term
``Participant.''
    \5\ See generally Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76087
(October 6, 2015), 80 FR 61540 (SR-CHX-2015-03) (``Approval Order'')
(order approving the adoption of the SNAP rules on the Exchange).
The approved rule changes governing the SNAP are not yet operative
and will become operative upon two weeks' notice by the Exchange to
its Participants. See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 13857, n.3.
    \6\ Open Trading State means the period of time during the
regular trading session when orders are eligible for automatic
execution on the Exchange. See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(qq).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current rules, only a Participant may initiate
the SNAP Cycle by submitting a valid limit order marked Start SNAP.\7\
To initiate a SNAP Cycle, a Start SNAP order must meet certain size,\8\
price,\9\ and timing requirements.\10\ Orders marked with a SNAP
Auction Only modifier (SNAP AOO--Day, SNAP AOO--One and Done, SNAP AOO-
Pegged) that are received during Open Trading State are queued in the
SNAP Auction Only Order (``AOO'') Queue and are eligible for execution
only during a SNAP Cycle.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1) and CHX Article 18, Rule
1(b)(1).
    \8\ To initiate a SNAP Cycle, a Start SNAP order must be for (a)
at least 2,500 shares and have a minimum aggregate notional value of
$250,000 or (b) at least 20,000 shares with no minimum aggregate
notional value requirement; provided, however, that certain issues
specified in the rule may have special minimum size requirements.
See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(i).
    \9\ To initiate a SNAP Cycle, the limit price of a buy (sell)
Start SNAP Order must be priced at or through the National Best
Offer (National Best Bid) at the time the order was received by the
Matching System. If the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') is
crossed or a two-sided NBBO does not exist at the time the limit
order marked Start SNAP is received by the Matching System, the
limit order marked Start SNAP would not initiate a SNAP Cycle. A
limit order marked Start SNAP and Sell Short, as defined under CHX
Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(E), for a covered security subject to short
sale price test restriction, may not initiate a SNAP Cycle and would
be cancelled. See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(ii).
    \10\ A Start SNAP order will initiate a SNAP Cycle only if it is
received during the Exchange's regular trading session; provided,
however, that it will not initiate a SNAP Cycle if it is received
(a) within five minutes of the first two-sided quote in the subject
security having been received by the Exchange from the primary
market disseminated after either the beginning of the Exchange's
regular trading session or a trading halt or pause that required the
Exchange to suspend trading in the subject security; (b) within five
minutes of the end of the regular trading session; (c) during a SNAP
Cycle or (d) within one minute after the completion of the previous
SNAP Cycle. See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A)(iii).
    \11\ See CHX Article 20, Rule 8(b)(2)(A) and CHX Article 18,
Rule 1(b)(2)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to
permit the Exchange to initiate a SNAP Cycle, under certain
circumstances, in the absence of a Start SNAP order. The Exchange would
conduct pro forma SNAP reviews of the contents of the CHX book, SNAP
AOO Queue, and Protected Quotations of external markets for each SNAP-
eligible security, consecutively and continuously in a preset
order,\12\ and would initiate a SNAP Cycle for a security if a review
projects that the aggregate number of executions would satisfy certain
minimum size and notional value requirements, as applicable. In
conducting the pro forma SNAP review, the Exchange would take a market
snapshot of the Protected Quotations of external markets in the subject
security and calculate a pro forma SNAP Price to determine: (1) Whether
the projected execution size (``PES'') at the pro forma SNAP Price is
equal to or greater than the corresponding minimum PES; and (2) whether
the PES within the Matching System at the pro forma SNAP Price would be
equal to or greater than 80% of the corresponding minimum PES. The
minimum PES for an Exchange-initiated SNAP is either: (1) 2,500 Shares
with a minimum aggregate notional value of $250,000 based on the
midpoint of the NBBO ascertained from the market snapshot; or (2)
20,000 shares with no minimum aggregate notional value requirement;
provided, however, that the PES for Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. (BRK-A)
would be a flat 100 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange represents that it will not modify this
procedure absent an approved filing pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the
Act. See Notice, supra note 3, 81 FR at 13858, n.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There would be restrictions on when the Exchange may initiate a
SNAP Cycle. Proposed Rule 1A(c) prohibits the Exchange from initiating
a SNAP Cycle:
    (1) Within five minutes of the first two-sided quote in the subject
security having been received by the Exchange from the primary market
disseminated after either the beginning of the regular trading session
or a trading halt, pause or suspension that required the Exchange to
suspend trading in the subject security;
    (2) within five minutes of the end of the regular trading session;

    (3) during a SNAP Cycle;
    (4) within one minute after the completion of the previous SNAP
Cycle;
    (5) if the CHX Routing Services are not available at the time of
the market snapshot taken pursuant to be proposed Rule 1A(b);
    (6) if the NBBO ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant
to proposed Rule 1A(b) is crossed or a two-sided NBBO does not exist.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review and consideration, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\14\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, and that the
rules of a national securities exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When it approved the SNAP, the Commission stated that it believed
that the SNAP: (1) Was reasonably designed to facilitate the auction
trading of securities on CHX in a fair and orderly manner, and could
improve market quality for market participants seeking to execute bulk
trading interests and for other market participants submitting orders
in response to that interest; \15\ and (2) may promote liquidity while
minimizing potential information leakage that could disadvantage market
participants whose orders are participating in the SNAP Cycle.\16\ The
Commission believes that the Exchange-initiated SNAP functionality may
result in more bulk executions in SNAP-eligible securities by
allowing--under certain circumstances--SNAP AOOs queued in the Matching
System to match in the absence of a valid Start SNAP order.
Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed restrictions on
when the Exchange may initiate a SNAP Cycle are reasonably designed to
provide for a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Approval Order, supra note 5, 80 FR at 61544.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
would further minimize information leakage from SNAP Cycles in that
market participants would not know which initiating mechanism triggered
a particular SNAP Cycle.
    For the above reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered that, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2016-01) be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10152 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 25174]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) and Subcommittee:
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) will meet on Monday and Tuesday, May 19-20, 2014. The
MCSAC will meet to discuss ideas and suggestions for changes to the
minimum levels of financial responsibility requirements for interstate
truck and bus operations. On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, MCSAC's Cross
Border Subcommittee will convene. Meetings are open to the public for
their entirety and there will be a public comment period at the end of
each day.
    Times and Dates: The meeting will be held Monday-Tuesday, May 19-
20, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), at the
Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 in
the Washington and Jefferson Rooms on the 2nd floor. On Wednesday, May
21, 2014, the Cross Border Subcommittee will meet at that same location
from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Copies of the MCSAC Task Statement and an agenda
for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting
at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on
facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request
special assistance at the meeting, please contact Mr. Eran Segev at
(617) 494-3174 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday, May 14, 2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    MCSAC was established to provide FMCSA with advice and
recommendations on motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier
safety regulations. MCSAC is composed of 20 voting representatives from
safety advocacy, safety enforcement, labor, and industry stakeholders
of motor carrier safety. The diversity of the Committee ensures the
requisite range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its
responsibilities. The Committee operates as a discretionary committee
under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. See FMCSA's MCSAC
Web site for additional information about the committee's activities at
http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/.
    On Thursday, April 17, 2014, FMCSA released its Report to Congress
on ``Examining the Appropriateness of Current Financial Responsibility
and Security Requirements for Motor Carriers, Brokers, and Freight
Forwarders'' as required by Section 32104 of MAP-21. The report is
posted on the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/reports-congress.

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last half-
hour of the meetings each day. Should all public comments be exhausted
prior to the end of the specified period, the comment period will
close. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics
to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, May 14, 2014, to
Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2006-26367
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., E.T. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: April 28, 2014.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-10032 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45023]
[DOCID:fr10au07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-139-003]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.; Notice of Errata to Compliance
Filing

August 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 31, 2007, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1, 2nd Sub Second Revised Sheet No. 513, to become
effective on July 19, 2007.
    Algonquin states that this substitute revised tariff sheet is being
filed to correct an error in the corresponding tariff sheet that was
submitted on July 27, 2007 in compliance with a July 19, 2007 order in
the captioned docket.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15647 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P