[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26191-26195]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10616]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905; FRL 9927-16-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS58

Approval of Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Birmingham, Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a request from the state of Alabama for the EPA
to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for
Jefferson and Shelby counties (``the Birmingham area''). Specifically,
the EPA is approving amendments to the regulations to change the RVP
standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi)
to 9.0 psi for gasoline. The EPA has determined that this change to the
federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken without prior
proposal because the EPA believes that this rulemaking is
noncontroversial for the reasons set forth in this preamble, and due to
the limited scope of this action.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by June 8, 2015. If the EPA
receives such comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0905, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905. Please include a total of
two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0905.
Please include two copies. Such deliveries are accepted only 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-OAR-
2014-0905. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 the 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
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patty Klavon, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Action Being Taken
III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement
IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas
V. Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal RVP Requirement for the
Birmingham Area
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA issuing a direct final rule?

    The EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the EPA views this revision as noncontroversial
and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking
is described in detail below. In the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP standard that
applies in the Birmingham area should adverse comments be filed. If the
EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action
on the proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule
or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final
rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and
distributors who do business in Alabama.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NAICS \1\
          Examples of potentially regulated entities             codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum refineries.........................................     324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors..........................     424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations.....................................     447110
Gasoline Transporters........................................     484220
                                                                  484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The  above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA
is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types
of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this
rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this
rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
    You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket
materials.

II. Action Being Taken

    This direct final rule approves a request from the state of Alabama
to change the summertime RVP standard for Jefferson and Shelby counties
(``the Birmingham area'') from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a previous rulemaking, the EPA
approved a state implementation plan (SIP) revision from the state of
Alabama which provided a technical demonstration that relaxing the
federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from
June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Birmingham area would not
interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the Birmingham area. For more information on
Alabama's SIP revision, please refer to the April 17, 2015 rulemaking
(80 FR 21170).
    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section
III. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility
regulation. Section IV. describes the policy regarding relaxation of
volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated
as attainment areas. Section V. provides information specific to
Alabama's request for the Birmingham area. Finally, Section VI.
presents the final action in response to Alabama's request.

III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), the EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in

evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma
and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section
211(c), the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868)
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high
ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), the EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control
program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0
psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's
initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address
fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits the EPA from establishing a
volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area,
except that the EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any
former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above
9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January
13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for
certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility
controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate
changes to their respective volatility programs. The EPA's policy for
approving such changes is described below in Section IV. of this
action.
    The state of Alabama has initiated this change by requesting that
the EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi for the Birmingham
area, which is subject to the 7.8 psi RVP requirement during the
summertime ozone season. Accordingly, the state of Alabama provided a
technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal RVP
requirement in the Birmingham area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. See Section V. of this action for information
specific to Alabama's request for the Birmingham area.

IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility
standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a
nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment
area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises
the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility
standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the
federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an
area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is
completed that relaxes the federal RVP standard in that area from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the EPA believes
that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in
conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA
section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA
section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for
the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances,
this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable
of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, the
EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a
relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the EPA that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without
the need for the more stringent volatility standard.
    Alabama did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from
7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when the Birmingham area was redesignated to
attainment for either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
However, Alabama took a conservative approach in developing maintenance
plans associated with those redesignation requests by estimating
emissions using a federal RVP requirement of 9.0 psi.

V. Alabama's Request To Relax the Federal RVP Requirement for the
Birmingham Area

    In a May 12, 2006 final rule, the EPA approved the Birmingham
area's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. See 71 FR 27631 (May 12, 2006).\2\ As required, the CAA section
175A maintenance plan provides for continued attainment and maintenance
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for at least ten years from the effective date
of the Birmingham area's redesignation to attainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. This maintenance plan also includes components demonstrating how
the Birmingham area will continue to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
provides contingency measures should the Birmingham area violate that
NAAQS. The state of Alabama's ozone redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the Birmingham area did not remove the state-level
7.0 psi RVP requirement that was in place for the Birmingham area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Birmingham area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby counties)
was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    \3\ In 2001, the EPA approved a state fuel program that imposed
a more stringent 7.0 psi requirement for the Birmingham area, per
CAA section 211(c)(4)(C). The low-RVP fuel program required that all
gasoline sold during the summertime ozone season (June 1-September
15 of each year) in the Birmingham area contain a maximum RVP of 7.0
psi. See 66 FR 56218 (November 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2012, the state of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a proposed
revision to Alabama's SIP

removing the state-level RVP requirement to use 7.0 psi RVP gasoline in
the Birmingham area during the summertime ozone season. The EPA
approved the revision in an April 20, 2012 final rule. See 77 FR 23619.
The revision to the Alabama SIP resulted in the federal RVP requirement
of 7.8 psi applying to the Birmingham area.
    On November 14, 2014, the state of Alabama submitted a proposed
revision to its SIP demonstrating that removal of the federal RVP
requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summer ozone season in
the Birmingham area would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS.
Specifically, the state provided a technical demonstration showing that
relaxing the federal RVP requirements in the Birmingham area from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS or
with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    The EPA evaluated and approved Alabama's November 14, 2014 SIP
revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public notice-
and-comment. The EPA received two comments on that rulemaking, and
those comments were addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking.
See 80 FR 21170 (April 17, 2015). The comments received can be found in
the docket for that rulemaking (EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0867).
    In this action, the EPA is approving Alabama's request to relax the
summertime ozone season RVP standard for the Birmingham area from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi. This is based on the previous approval of Alabama's
November 14, 2014 SIP revision, and the fact that the Birmingham area
is currently in attainment for all ozone NAAQS.

VI. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the request from
Alabama for the EPA to relax the RVP applicable to gasoline introduced
into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the
Birmingham area. Specifically, this action amends the applicable RVP
standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the
Birmingham area (i.e., Jefferson and Shelby counties, Alabama).
    The EPA is making this revision without prior proposal because the
EPA views the revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP standard that applies
in the Birmingham area should adverse comments be filed. This rule will
become effective July 6, 2015 without further notice unless the EPA
receives adverse comments by June 8, 2015.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of
the rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of
the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will
become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment
period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will become effective on July 6,
2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the
requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of
gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in
the Birmingham area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in
the Birmingham area. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for
gasoline sold in the Birmingham area during the summertime ozone season
(June 1 to September 15 of each year) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This
rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small
entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from
the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We have therefore
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA
section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the
EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule
affects only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that
choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Birmingham
area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Birmingham
area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable
ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. This rule will relax the applicable
volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, possibly resulting
in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, the state of
Alabama has demonstrated in the Birmingham area's approved maintenance
plan that this action will not interfere with attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an
anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in
Section V. of this direct final rule. A copy of Alabama's November 14,
2014 letter requesting that the EPA relax the RVP standard, including
the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent RVP in the
Birmingham area would not interfere with continued maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard, has been placed in
the public docket for this action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. 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 June 8, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct final
rule does not affect the finality of this action 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
document of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the
Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that the 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 CAA section
307(b)(2).

VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by
Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C.
7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

0
2. In Sec.  80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Alabama; and
0
b. Adding footnote 8.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *

                               Applicable Standards \1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     State                           May          June         July        August     September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama \8\....................................          9.0          9.0          9.0          9.0          9.0

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
* * * * * * *
\8\ The standard for Jefferson and Shelby Counties from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through July 6, 2015
  was 7.8 psi.
* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-10616 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

10/02/2007 11:01 AM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Lydia Wegman, rosalina rodriguez, Lisa Conner, Janet
Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>darryl
weatherhead, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

summary of discussion from Friday

Thanks for getting together for a quick kickoff discussion on Friday.
As I indicated during the discussion, I think we can have weekly topics
for the interagency group beginning with our workshop on the 17th and
18th.  As we discussed, we will try to figure out ways of compressing
the schedule for the workshop.  I hope you can make it.  Here is what I
think will work as a schedule for briefings:

Week of 10/8:  Nothing scheduled, Monday is Federal holiday and my group
has a two day internal meeting on the 9th and 10th.

Week of 10/15:   2 day workshop in RTP on RIA as previously discussed.
Working now to revise agenda to cut to Wed afternoon and all day
Thursday to better fit schedules of Interagency attendees.  Note that
there was a question raised during the call about when the interagency
committee would hear about the air quality approach for extrapolation to
different levels of the standard.  This is part of the air quality
presentation to be given during this workshop.

Week of 10/22:  Overview briefing of the schedule and approach to the
RIA.   We will specifically have updates on the status of the UVB and
Cost Effectiveness analyses as part of this meeting.  We will also have
an update on the status of the NAS ozone mortality panel schedule.
Probably schedule for 2 hours to allow time for questions.

Week of 10/29:  Discussion of options for presenting the extrapolated
costs and benefits, including an option of not monetizing either which
would be consistent with the advice of the SAB 812 panel.  Given that
the RIA is subject to EO 12866 and OMB Circular A-4, I think we will
reach a point where some monetization occurs but I do want to preserve
the ability to consider no monetization.  As part of this presentation
we will also be prepared to discuss the options for estimating the
economic impact of the extrapolated costs.  Given the scope of this
discussion, I think 2 hours will again be the appropriate amount of
time.

I think addresses the questions raised during our conversation.  Please
let me know what you think of this schedule and what steps you want to
take to move forward with the planning.  Talk to you  soon.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 961-962]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0349; Airspace Docket No. 17-AAL-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Alaska Towns; St.
Michael, AK; Shaktoolik, AK; and Tatitlek, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface in Alaska at St. Michael Airport;
Shaktoolik Airport; and Tatitlek Airport. This action adds exclusionary
language to the legal descriptions of these airports to exclude Class E
airspace extending beyond 12 miles from the shoreline, and ensures the
safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S. 216th St, Des Moines, WA, 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface at St. Michael Airport, Shaktoolik Airport, and Tatitlek
Airport, AK, to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach
and departure procedures at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 37773; August 2, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0349 to
modify Class E airspace for the following Alaska Towns; St. Michael
Airport, AK; Shaktoolik Airport, AK; and Tatitlek Airport, AK.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface at St. Michael Airport, AK; Shaktoolik Airport, AK;
and Tatitlek Airport, AK. This action adds language to the legal
descriptions of these airports that reads ``excluding that airspace
that extends beyond 12 miles from the shoreline''.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current,
and is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 1,200
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Shaktoolik, AK [Amended]

Shaktoolik Airport, AK
    (Lat. 64[deg]22'16'' N, long. 161[deg]13'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Shaktoolik Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of Shaktoolik Airport, AK, excluding that airspace that
extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 St. Michael, AK [Amended]

St. Michael Airport, AK
    (Lat. 63[deg]29'24'' N, long. 162[deg]06'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.4-mile radius of St. Michael Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the St. Michael Airport, excluding that airspace that
extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Tatitlek, AK [Amended]

Tatitlek Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]52'21'' N, long. 146[deg]41'28'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Tatitlek Airport, and within 2 miles
southwest and 3.4 miles northeast of the 149[deg] radial from
Tatitlek Airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles
southeast of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within a 60-mile radius of the Tatitlek
Airport, excluding that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles of the
shoreline.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2018.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-28101 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6910-6913]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02428]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94125; No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

February 1, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 25, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') regarding eligibility for certain tiers,
incentives, and discounts during the Exchange's migration to a new
trading platform. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective January 25, 2022. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to provide
OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTP Holders'') with
certainty regarding their eligibility for certain tiers, incentives,
and discounts during the Exchange's migration to a new electronic
trading platform, as an effort to mitigate fees during this transition
period.
    Currently, the Exchange conducts options trading on an electronic
platform known as ``OX.'' OX refers to the Exchange's electronic order
delivery, execution, and reporting system for designated option issues
through which orders and quotes of Users are consolidated for execution
and/or display.\4\ On or about February 7, 2022, the Exchange
anticipates beginning the migration of its options trading to a new
technology platform known as Pillar.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.1A-O(a)(13).
    \5\ The Exchange has announced that, pending regulatory
approval, it will begin migrating Exchange-listed options to Pillar
on February 7, 2022, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000322291. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 92304 (June 30, 2021), 86 FR 36440 (July 9, 2021) (SR-
NYSEArca-2021-47) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change for New
Rules 6.1P-O, 6.37AP-O, 6.40P-O, 6.41P-O, 6.62P-O, 6.64P-O, 6.76P-O,
and 6.76AP-O and Amendments to Rules 1.1, 6.1-O, 6.1A-O, 6.37-O,
6.65A-O and 6.96-O) and Amendment No. 4 to SR-NYSEArca-2021-47,
available here: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2021-47/srnysearca202147-20112491-265389.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers various volume- and performance-based
incentives and discounts to encourage OTP Holders to use the Exchange
as their primary venue for order routing and execution and for market
making activity. Many of these incentive and discount programs include
multiple tiers, which are intended to encourage greater participation
in the programs and to incent OTP Holders to continually grow their
business on the Exchange in order to qualify for the benefits offered
in a higher tier.
    In advance of the Exchange's migration to the Pillar platform, the
Exchange has noted concern among OTP Holders regarding their ability to
achieve various volume qualifications and thresholds during the
migration. Specifically, because OTP Holders may choose to moderate
their order flow and quotation sizes to reduce risk as they familiarize
themselves with the new trading platform, they may not achieve the
tier(s), incentive(s), and discount(s)

they qualified for pre-migration. Accordingly, the Exchange believes
that providing OTP Holders with certainty with respect to certain
pricing they would receive during the transition to Pillar would
provide OTP Holders with an opportunity to adjust to new functionality
and new order handling mechanisms without taking on an additional
financial burden.
    To this end, the Exchange proposes to amend Endnote 8 of the Fee
Schedule to provide that for the month during which the Exchange
commences its migration to the Pillar platform (the ``Migration
Month''), OTP Holders will receive the tier(s), incentive(s), and
discount(s) they achieved in the month prior to the Migration Month or
the tier(s), incentive(s), and discount(s) achieved during the
Migration Month, whichever are better. Specifically, the Exchange will
compare an OTP Holder's performance in each of the programs set forth
below during the Migration Month and during the month prior (currently
anticipated to be January 2022) and will bill the OTP Holder for the
Migration Month at the most favorable rates based on each qualification
level achieved.
    The following tiers, incentives, and discount programs would be
covered by the proposed change:

 Customer Penny Posting Credit Tiers
 Firm and Broker Dealer Penny Posting Credit Tiers
 Firm and Broker Dealer Incentive Program
 Non-Customer, Non-Penny Posting Credit Tiers
 Customer Incentive Program
 Customer Posting Credit Tiers in Non-Penny Issues
 Discount in Take Liquidity Fees for Professional Customer and
Non-Customer Liquidity Removing Interest
 Market Maker Incentive For Penny Issues
 Market Maker Incentive For Non-Penny Issues
 Market Maker Incentives for SPY
 Market Maker Penny and SPY Posting Credit Tiers
 LMM Rights Fee Discount

    The Exchange believes that, to the extent OTP Holders choose to
modify their trading activity during the Migration Month, the proposed
change would mitigate the impact of potential pricing disruption by
providing OTP Holders with certainty regarding the tier(s),
incentive(s), and discount(s) they would be eligible for in the
Migration Month, which would in turn encourage OTP Holders to continue
to send orders and quotes to the Exchange during the transition to
Pillar.
    In addition, by offering OTP Holders the better pricing of the
month before the Migration Month or the Migration Month, the Exchange
believes OTP Holders will be incented to take full advantage of new
Pillar functionality and possibly even increase their volume and
participation during the migration.
    The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the underlying tiers,
incentives, or discounts covered by the proposed change described
above.
    The Exchange proposes to implement this change effective January
25, 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\7\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\9\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
order flow. More specifically, in December 2021, the Exchange had less
than 14% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity &
ETF options trades.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety of
formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange, available
here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \10\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options increased
from 9.65% for the month of December 2020 to 13.21% for the month of
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonably
designed to continue to incent OTP Holders to maintain active
participation on the Exchange during the Pillar migration by offering
OTP Holders pricing at each of the tier(s), incentive(s), and
discount(s) they qualify for during either the Migration Month or in
the month prior to the Migration Month, whichever is more favorable to
the OTP Holder. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change
would lessen the impact of the migration on OTP Holders by enabling
them to adapt their trading activity as needed to transition to Pillar
functionality during the Migration Month and would thus encourage OTP
Holders to promptly transition to the more efficient Pillar platform.
    To the extent the proposed rule change encourages OTP Holders to
migrate to the new platform while maintaining their level of trading
activity, the Exchange believes the proposed change would sustain the
Exchange's overall competitiveness and its market quality for all
market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in
which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt by the Exchange to mitigate the expense of the migration
without affecting its competitiveness.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits because it would be available to all
OTP Holders. In addition, the proposal is based on each OTP Holder's
activity levels before and during the Migration Month and would afford
OTP Holders the flexibility to moderate their activity as needed during
the Migration Month and still receive the more favorable rates between
the tier(s), incentive(s), and discount(s) they achieve in the
Migration Month or in

the month prior. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
would facilitate a smooth transition to the Pillar technology platform
for all market participants on the Exchange by encouraging OTP Holders
to send orders and quotes to the Exchange during the transition period,
thereby improving market-wide quality.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would be available to all similarly-situated
market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    The proposal is based on an OTP Holder's achievement of tiers,
incentives, and discounts prior to and during the Migration Month and
would provide all OTP Holders with certainty that they would at least
qualify for the same tier(s), incentive(s), and discount(s) as in the
month prior to the Migration Month. The proposed change would thus
allow OTP Holders to adjust their interactions with Exchange systems
during the Migration Month as needed and take advantage of the new
functionality offered by Pillar by mitigating the impact of potential
pricing disruptions. Thus, to the extent the proposal encourages OTP
Holders to maintain or increase their current level of activity on the
Exchange, such activity would result in trading opportunities for all
market participants and thus would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 8, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule change would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate because it would apply equally to all OTP
Holders that submit orders and quotes electronically to the Exchange.
All OTP Holders would be eligible to receive the rates under each of
the tier(s), incentive(s), and discount(s) they achieved in the
Migration Month or in the month prior to the Migration Month, whichever
are better.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\12\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
December 2021, the Exchange had less than 14% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
    \13\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options increased
from 9.65% for the month of December 2020 to 13.21% for the month of
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. The Exchange believes that its fees are
constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges
and thus believes that the proposed change is reasonably designed to
encourage OTP Holders to transition to the Pillar platform while
mitigating the risk of a significant change to the fees they would be
subject to during the Migration Month. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would continue to make the Exchange a
competitive venue for order execution by enabling OTP Holders to
maintain their current levels of interaction with the Exchange (or make
adjustments as needed) during the Migration Month, thus encouraging
prompt migration to the newer, more efficient Pillar technology
platform and sustained activity on the Exchange during the Pillar
transition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-05. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-05, and should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02428 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 160)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 46534]
[DOCID:fr20au07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available from: Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Assistance,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.
    Extension: Rule 302, SEC File No. 270-453, OMB Control No. 3235-
0510.

Correction

    In notice document E7-14842 appearing on page 42138 in the issue of
Wednesday, August 1, 2007, make the following correction:
    In the second column, the document heading is corrected to read as
set forth above.

[FR Doc. Z7-14842 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D