[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16142-16146]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83020; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 19.3, Criteria for Underlying Securities

April 9, 2018.
    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 March 29, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 19.3(b).
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. Rules

* * * * *

Rule 19.3. Criteria for Underlying Securities

    (a) (No change).
    (b) In addition, the Exchange shall from time to time establish
standards to be considered in evaluating potential underlying
securities for EDGX Options options transactions. There are many
relevant factors which must be considered in arriving at such a
determination, and the fact that a particular security may meet the
standards established by the Exchange does not necessarily mean that it
will be selected as an underlying security. The Exchange may give
consideration to maintaining diversity among various industries and
issuers in selecting underlying securities. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an underlying security will not be selected unless:
    (1)-(4) (No change).
    (5) Either:
    (A) if the underlying security is a ``covered security'' as defined
under Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933, the market
price per share of the underlying security has been at least $3.00 for
the previous [five]three consecutive business days preceding the date
on which the Exchange submits a certificate to the Clearing Corporation
for listing and trading, as measured by the closing price reported in
the primary market in which the underlying security is traded; or
    (B) (No change).
    (c)-(m) (No change).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3, Criteria for Underlying
Securities, to modify the criteria for listing options on an underlying
security as defined in Section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of
1933 (hereinafter ``covered security'' or ``covered securities''). This
is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted
by Nasdaq

PHLX LLC (``Nasdaq Phlx'') and approved by the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82474 (January 9,
2018), 83 FR 2240 (January 16, 2018) (order approving SR-Phlx-2017-
75); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82828 (March 8,
2018), 83 FR 11278 (March 14, 2018) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of SR-MIAX-2018-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 19.3(b)(5)(A)
to permit the listing of an option on an underlying covered security
that has a market price of at least $3.00 per share for the previous
three (3) consecutive business days preceding the date on which the
Exchange submits a certificate to the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') for listing and trading. The Exchange does not intend to
amend any other criteria for listing options on an underlying security
in Rule 19.3.
    Currently the underlying covered security must have a closing
market price of $3.00 per share for the previous five (5) consecutive
business days preceding the date on which the Exchange submits a
listing certificate to OCC. In the proposed amendment, the market price
will still be measured by the closing price reported in the primary
market in which the underlying covered security is traded, but the
measurement will be the price over the prior three (3) consecutive
business day period preceding the submission of the listing certificate
to OCC, instead of the prior five (5) business day period.
    The Exchange acknowledges that the Options Listing Procedures Plan
\6\ requires that the listing certificate be provided to OCC no earlier
than 12:01 a.m. and no later than 11:00 a.m. (Chicago time) on the
trading day prior to the day on which trading is to begin.\7\ The
proposed amendment will still comport with that requirement. For
example, if an initial public offering (``IPO'') occurs at 11:00 a.m.
on Monday, the earliest date the Exchange could submit its listing
certificate to OCC would be on Thursday by 12:01 a.m. (Chicago time),
with the market price determined by the closing price over the three-
day period from Monday through Wednesday. The option on the IPO would
then be eligible for trading on the Exchange on Friday. The proposed
amendment would essentially enable options trading within four (4)
business days of an IPO becoming available instead of six (6) business
days (five (5) consecutive days plus the day the listing certificate is
submitted to OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing
Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of
Standardized Options Submitted Pursuant to Section 11a(2)(3)(B) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (a/k/a the Options Listing
Procedures Plan (``OLPP'')) is a national market system plan that,
among other things, sets forth procedures governing the listing of
new options series. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44521
(July 6, 2001), 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001) (Order approving OLPP).
The sponsors of OLPP include OCC; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (formerly
BATS Exchange, Inc.); BOX Options Exchange LLC; Cboe C2 Exchange,
Inc. (formerly C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated); Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (formerly Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated); Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. (formerly EDGX Exchange, Inc.); Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq GEMX,
LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; NYSE American, LLC; and NYSE
Arca, Inc.
    \7\ See OLPP at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's initial listing standards for equity options in Rule
19.3 (including the current price/time standard of $3.00 per share for
five (5) consecutive business days) are substantially similar to the
initial listing standards adopted by other options exchanges.\8\ At the
time EDGX Options received its initial approval from the Commission, as
part of its Rules, the Exchange adopted the options industry adopted
the ``look back'' period of five consecutive business days, because it
determined that the five-day period was sufficient to protect against
attempts to manipulate the market price of the underlying security and
would provide a reliable test for stability.\9\ Surveillance
technologies and procedures concerning manipulation have evolved since
then to provide adequate prevention or detection of rule or securities
law violations within the proposed time frame, and the Exchange
represents that its existing trading surveillances are adequate to
monitor the trading of options on the Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Phlx Rule 1009, Commentary .01; see also MIAX
Rule 402(b)(5) and BOX Rule 5020(b)(5).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75650 (August 7,
2015), 80 FR 48600 (August 13, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-18) (order
approving rules governing the trading of options on the Cboe EDGX
Exchange).
    \10\ Such surveillance procedures generally focus on detecting
securities trading subject to opening price manipulation, closing
price manipulation, layering, spoofing or other unlawful activity
impacting an underlying security, the option, or both. The Exchange
has price movement alerts, unusual market activity and order book
alerts active for all trading symbols. These real-time patterns are
active for the new security as soon as the IPO begins trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the scope of its surveillance
program also includes cross-market surveillance for trading that is not
just limited to the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange or the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), pursuant to a
regulatory services agreement on behalf of the Exchange and its
affiliate Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), operates a range of cross-
market equity surveillance patterns to look for potential manipulative
behavior, including spoofing, algorithm gaming, marking the close and
open, and momentum ignition strategies, as well as more general,
abusive behavior related to front running, wash sales, quoting/routing,
and Reg SHO violations. These cross-market patterns incorporate
relevant data from various markets beyond the Exchange and its
affiliates, including data from the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'')
and from the Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'').
    Additionally, for options, the Exchange and BZX utilize an array of
patterns that monitor manipulation of options, or manipulation of
equity securities (regardless of venue) for the purpose of impacting
options prices on both the Exchange and BZX options markets (i.e.,
mini-manipulation strategies). Surveillance coverage is initiated once
options begin trading on either the Exchange or BZX. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the cross-market surveillance performed by the
Exchange or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange and BZX, coupled with the
Exchange staff's real-time monitoring of similarly violative activity
on the Exchange and BZX as described herein, reflects a comprehensive
surveillance program that is adequate to monitor for manipulation of
the underlying security and overlying option within the proposed three-
day look back period.
    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that the proposed listing criteria
would still require that the underlying security be listed on NYSE, the
American Stock Exchange (now known as NYSE American), or the National
Market System of The Nasdaq Stock Market (now known as the Nasdaq
Global Market) (collectively, the ``Named Markets''), as provided for
in the definition of ``covered security'' from Section 18(b)(1)(A) of
the 1933 Act. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change would still ensure that the underlying security meets the high
listing standards of a Named Market, and would also ensure that the
underlying is covered by the regulatory protections (including market
surveillance, investigation and enforcement) offered by these exchanges
for trading in covered securities conducted on their facilities.
    Furthermore, the Nasdaq had no cases within the past five years
where an IPO-related issue for which it had pricing information
qualified for the $3.00 price requirement during the first three (3)
days of trading and did not qualify for the $3.00 price requirement
during the

first five (5) days.\11\ In other words, none of these qualifying
issues fell below the $3.00 threshold within the first three (3) or
five (5) days of trading. As such, the Exchange believes that its
existing surveillance technologies and procedures, coupled with
Nasdaq's findings related to the IPO-related issues as described
herein, adequately address potential concerns regarding possible
manipulation or price stability within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ There were over 750 IPO-related issues on Nasdaq within the
past five years. Out of all of the issues with pricing information,
there was only one issue that had a price below $3 during the first
five consecutive business days. The Exchange notes, however, that
Nasdaq allows for companies to list on the Nasdaq Capital Market at
$2.00 or $3.00 per share in some instances, which was the case for
this particular issue. See Nasdaq Rule 5500 Series for initial
listing standards on the Nasdaq Capital Market; see also Release No.
82474 in supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed look back period can
be implemented in connection with the other initial listing criteria
for underlying covered securities. In particular, the Exchange
recognizes that it may be difficult to verify the number of
shareholders in the days immediately following an IPO due to the fact
that stock trades generally clear within two business days (T+2) of
their trade date and therefore the shareholder count will generally not
be known until T+2.\12\ The Exchange notes that the current T+2
settlement cycle was recently reduced from T+3 on September 5, 2017 in
connection with the Commission's amendments to Rule 15c6-1(a) to adopt
the shortened settlement cycle,\13\ and the look back period of three
(3) consecutive business days proposed herein reflects this shortened
T+2 settlement period. As proposed, stock trades would clear within T+2
of their trade date (i.e., within three (3) business days) and
therefore the number of shareholders could be verified within three (3)
business days, thereby enabling options trading within four (4)
business days of an IPO (three (3) consecutive business days plus the
day the listing certificate is submitted to OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The number of shareholders of record can be validated by
large clearing agencies such as The Depository Trust and Clearing
Corporation (``DTCC'') upon the settlement date (i.e., T+2).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78962 (September
28, 2016), 81 FR 69240 (October 5, 2016) (Amendment to Securities
Transaction Settlement Cycle) (File No. S7-22-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it can verify the shareholder
count with various brokerage firms that have a large retail customer
clientele. Such firms can confirm the number of individual customers
who have a position in the new issue. The earliest that these firms can
provide confirmation is usually the day after the first day of trading
(T+1) on an unsettled basis, while others can confirm on the third day
of trading (T+2). The Exchange has confirmed with some of these
brokerage firms who provide shareholder numbers to the Exchange that
they are T+2 after an IPO. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange
believes that basing the proposed three (3) business day look back
period on the T+2 settlement cycle would allow for sufficient
verification of the number of shareholders.
    The proposed rule change will apply to all covered securities that
meet the criteria of Rule 19.3. Pursuant to Rule 19.3, the Exchange
establishes guidelines to be considered in evaluating the potential
underlying securities for Exchange option transactions.\14\ However,
the fact that a particular security may meet the guidelines established
by the Exchange does not necessarily mean that it will be approved as
an underlying security.\15\ As part of the established criteria, the
issuer must be in compliance with any applicable requirement of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\16\ Additionally, there are many
relevant factors that are considered in arriving at a determination to
approve an underlying security.\17\ Even if the proposed option meets
the objective criteria, the Exchange may decide not to list, or place
limitations or conditions upon listing.\18\ The Exchange believes that
these measures, together with its existing surveillance procedures,
provide adequate safeguards in the review of any covered security that
may meet the proposed criteria for consideration of the option within
the timeframe contained in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 19.3(b). The Exchange established specific
criteria to be considered in evaluating potential underlying
securities for Exchange option transactions.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ See Rule 19.3(b)(3).
    \17\ See Rule 19.3(b).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\19\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \20\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its listing
standards for covered securities would allow the Exchange to more
quickly list options on a qualifying covered security that has met the
$3.00 eligibility price without sacrificing investor protection. As
discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing trading
surveillances provide a sufficient measure of protection against
potential price manipulation within the proposed three (3) consecutive
business day timeframe. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
three (3) consecutive business day timeframe would continue to be a
reliable test for price stability in light of Nasdaq's findings that
none of the IPO-related issues on Nasdaq within the past five years
that qualified for the $3.00 per share price standard during the first
three trading days fell below the $3.00 threshold during the fourth or
fifth trading day. Furthermore, the established guidelines to be
considered by the Exchange in evaluating the potential underlying
securities for Exchange option transactions,\22\ together with existing
trading surveillances, provide adequate safeguards in the review of any
covered security that may meet the proposed criteria for consideration
of the option within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 14-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that basing the proposed
timeframe on the T+2 settlement cycle adequately addresses the
potential difficulties in confirming the number of shareholders of the
underlying covered security. Having some of the largest brokerage firms
that provide these shareholder counts to the Exchange confirm that they
are able to provide these numbers within T+2 further demonstrates that
the 2,000 shareholder requirement can be sufficiently verified within
the proposed timeframe. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange
believes that the

proposed amendments will remove and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system by providing an avenue for
investors to swiftly hedged their investment in the stock in a shorter
amount of time than what is currently in place.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This proposed rule change does not alter any obligations of
issuers or other investors of an IPO that may be subject to a lock-
up or other restrictions on trading related securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, it should be noted that a price/time standard for the
underlying security was first adopted when the listed options market
was in its infancy, and was intended to prevent the proliferation of
options being listed on low-priced securities that presented special
manipulation concerns and/or lacked liquidity needed to maintain fair
and orderly markets.\24\ When options trading commenced in 1973, the
Commission determined that it was necessary for securities underlying
options to meet certain minimum standards regarding both the quality of
the issuer and the quality of the market for a particular security.\25\
These standards, including a price/time standard, were imposed to
ensure that those issuers upon whose securities options were to be
traded were widely-held, financially sound companies whose shares had
trading volume and float substantial enough so as not to be readily
susceptible to manipulation.\26\ At the time, the Commission determined
that the imposition of these standards was reasonable in view of the
pilot nature of options trading and the limited experience of investors
with options trading.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 29628 (August 29,
1991), 56 FR 43949-01 (September 5, 1991) (SR-AMEX-86-21; SR-CBOE-
86-15; SR-NYSE-86-20; SR-PSE-86-15; and SR-PHLX-86-21) (``1991
Approval Order'') at 43949 (discussing the Commission's concerns
when options trading initially commenced in 1973).
    \25\ See 1991 Approval Order at 43949.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now more than 40 years later, the listed options market has evolved
into a mature market with sophisticated investors. In view of this
evolution, the Commission has approved various exchange proposals to
relax some of these initial listing standards throughout the years,\28\
including reducing the price/time standard in 2003 from $7.50 per share
for the majority of business days over a three month period to the
current $3.00 per share/five business day standard (``2003
Proposal'').\29\ It has been almost fifteen years since the Commission
approved the 2003 proposal, and both the listed options market and
exchange technologies have continued to evolve since then. In this
instance, the Exchange is only proposing a modest reduction of the
current five (5) business day standard to three (3) business days to
correspond to the securities industry's move to a T+2 standard
settlement cycle.\30\ The $3.00 per share standard and all other
initial options listing criteria in Rule 19.3 will remain unchanged by
this proposal. For the reasons discussed herein, the Exchange therefore
believes that the proposed three (3) business day period will be
beneficial to the marketplace without sacrificing investor protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., 1991 Approval Order (modifying a number of
initial listing criteria, including the reduction of the price/time
standard from $10 per share each day during the preceding three
calendar months to $7.50 per share for the majority of days during
the same period).
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 47190 (January 15,
2003), 68 FR 3072 (January 22, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-62); 47352
(February 11, 2003), 68 FR 8319 (February 20, 2003) (SR-PCX-2003-
06); 47483 (March 11, 2003), 68 FR 13352 (March 19, 2003) (SR-ISE-
2003-04); 47613 (April 1, 2003), 68 FR 17120 (April 8, 2003) (SR-
Amex-2003-19); and 47794 (May 5, 2003), 68 FR 25076 (May 9, 2003)
(SR-Phlx-2003-27).
    \30\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Nasdaq Phlx
that was recently approved by the Commission.\31\ The proposed rule
change will reduce the number of days to list options on an underlying
security, and is intended to bring new options listings to the
marketplace quicker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \32\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \34\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \35\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the
Exchange greater flexibility in bringing new options listing to the
marketplace more quickly, which will be beneficial to the marketplace
permit fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange to
modify the criteria for listing an option on an underlying covered
security which is currently allowed on Nasdaq Phlx.\36\ Based on the
foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \36\ See supra note 5.
    \37\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may
be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-011. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-011 and should be submitted
on or before May 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07675 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43230-43231]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18407]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122 and 125

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667, FRL-9441-8]
RIN 2040-AE95

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Cooling Water
Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On April 20, 2011, EPA proposed requirements under section
316(b) of the Clean Water Act for all existing power generating
facilities and existing manufacturing and industrial facilities. EPA
requested that public comments on the proposal be submitted on or
before July 19, 2011. Since publication, the Agency has received
several requests for additional time to submit comments. EPA is re-
opening the comment period and will accept public comments on the
proposal through August 18, 2011.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule, which was published April 20,
2011, at 76 FR 22174, must be received on or before August 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0667, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket
Center

(EPA/DC) Water Docket, MC 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0667. 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.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water
Docket/EPA/DC, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., EPA West, Room 3334,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30
p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Shriner, Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 15, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-18407 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3906-3907]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of
January 23, 2006: Closed Meetings will be held on Thursday, January 26,
2006 at 9 a.m. and on January 26, 2006 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the
matter will attend the Closed Meeting on January 26, 2006 at 9 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting on
January 26, 2006 at 2 p.m. Certain staff members who have an interest
in the matters may also be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a), (3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.
    Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meetings in closed sessions and that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. on
Thursday, January 26, 2006 will be:

    Institution and settlement of an injunctive action.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for 2 p.m. on
Thursday, January 26, 2006 will be:

Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Opinion; and
Amici consideration.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 20, 2006.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-707 Filed 1-20-06; 12:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72114-72117]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0019]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0019 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0019. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0019), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and

material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0019. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0019 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the
procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case
basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision
standards of Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced
monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver
program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the
same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are
also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will
continue to operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive
years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two
years with their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Brian K. Boyd

    Mr. Boyd, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
150. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion Mr. Boyd's condition is stable, non-deteriorating and
has sufficient vision to

perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Boyd reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years,
accumulating 21,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20
years, accumulating 1.98 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from
Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gary E. Collins

    Mr. Collins, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Collins has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Collins
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years,
accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Georgia.
His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Anthony A. DeCarlo

    Mr. DeCarlo, 58, has had a retinal vein occlusion in his right eye
since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, the patient has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. DeCarlo reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations
for 30 years, accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Darrel G. Jenkins

    Mr. Jenkins, 61, has a prosthetic in his right eye due to a tumor
in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In my professional medical opinion, the
patient is visually able to safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Jenkins reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 41
years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class DA CDL from
Kentucky. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Travis London

    Mr. London, 43, has had optic neuropathy in his right eye since
2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion, I feel there is no ocular contraindication to driving
a commercial or recreational vehicle.'' Mr. London reported that he has
driven straight trucks for six years, accumulating 30,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.13 million
miles. He holds a Class A3 CDL from North Carolina. His driving record
for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Vincent M. Najera

    Mr. Najera, 62, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Najera
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Najera reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 25 years, accumulating 375,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Jameson A. Otto

    Mr. Otto, 44, has had optic nerve hypoplasia in his left eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``I certify that he has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Otto reported that he has driven
straight trucks for one year, accumulating 18,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for seven years, accumulating 672,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Gerardo A. Padron

    Mr. Padron, 39, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to an
infection in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2019, his
optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Padron Portilla [sic] has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Padron reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 13 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Florida. His driving record for the last three years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Charles J. Rowsey

    Mr. Rowsey, 56, has a prosthetic in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1985. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2019, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Rowsey has
sufficient vision to perform the task required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Rowsey reported that he has driven straight trucks for
32 years, accumulating 2.2 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 32 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Kenneth C. Stump

    Mr. Stump, 50, has a macular scar in his left eye since 2016. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100.
Following an examination in 2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my
opinion the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle as long as he is wearing his
glasses at the time.'' Mr. Stump reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for six years, accumulating 1 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Jose M. Vasquez

    Mr. Vasquez, 50, has macular scarring in his left eye due to an
infection in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in
2019, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Based on the Snellen Visual Acuity
Scale, and my professional opinion, the patient has sufficient vision
to perform tasks of operating a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vasquez
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating
129,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New York. His driving record
for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

    Issued on: December 20, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-28161 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17186-17187]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13370-000]

Blue Heron Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

April 7, 2009.
    On February 6, 2009, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the North Springfield Dam Hydroelectric Project, to
be located on the Black River, in Windsor County, Vermont.
    The proposed North Springfield Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
located at: (1) The existing 2,940-foot-long U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers North Springfield Dam; (2) an existing Corps intake tower and
control works; and (3) an existing 1,200-acre reservoir with 50,000
acre-feet of storage.
    The project would consist of: (1) Three new turbine generating
units connected the intake tower with a total installed capacity of
0.65 megawatts; (2) a new 12.47-kilovolt transmission line and
transformer connected to an existing above ground distribution system;
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The North Springfield Dam Project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 2,200 megawatt-hours,
which would be sold to local utilities.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Lori Barg, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, 113
Bartlett Rd., Plainfield, VT 05667, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.

Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings, please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13370) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8457 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44291-44294]
[DOCID:fr28au09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0385; FRL-8948-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under
authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we
are approving these local rules that address changes for clarity and
consistency.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 27, 2009 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 28, 2009. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0385, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through  http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public comment and final action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..............................            1020  Definitions.............        01/15/09        03/17/09
SBCAPCD...............................             102  Definitions.............        01/15/09        03/17/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, these rule submittals were found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved a version of SJVUAPCD Rule 1020 into the SIP on
February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5262) and SBCAPCD Rule 102 on May 6, 2009 (74
FR 20872).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definitions, is amended to modify the
definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) in Section 3.53 of the
rule. Changes include exemption of chemical compounds tertiary butyl-
acetate and methyl formate as volatile organic compounds (VOC). Both
compounds will require submittals of documents when used in excess of
one gallon per year, per facility. Tertiary butyl-acetate will be
exempt for VOC emission limitation but not from recordkeeping and
reporting. The southern boundary of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is
also clarified in this rule.
    SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions, is amended by modifying the
definitions of ``gasoline'' and ``organic solvents'' to update the
referenced test methods and to improve rule clarity. EPA's technical
support documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that
support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In
combination with the other requirements, these rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to
help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the
Bluebook (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook
(``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have
more information on our evaluation.

C. Public comment and final action.

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by September 28, 2009, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the
direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do
not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be
effective without further notice on October 27, 2009. This will
incorporate these rules into the Federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not 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, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective September 28, 2009.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b) (2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(363) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (363) New and amended regulations were submitted on March 17, 2009
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 1020, ``Definitions,'' adopted on June 18, 1992 and
amended on January 15, 2009.
    (B) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 102, ``Definitions,'' adopted on October 18, 1971 and
amended on January 15, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-20804 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P