[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28733-28735]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74955; File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Collateral and Haircut
Policy

May 13, 2015.

I.Introduction

    On March 13, 2015, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe''
or ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to implement a new collateral and haircut policy
(the ``Haircut Policy'') applicable to Permitted Cover posted by
Clearing Members to meet the Clearing House's Margin and Guaranty Fund
requirements. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2015.\3\ The Commission did not receive
comment letters regarding the proposed change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74579 (Mar. 25,
2015), 80 FR 17132 (Mar. 31, 2015) (SR-ICEEU-2015-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to implement a Haircut Policy, which
would codify and consolidate certain existing practices of the Clearing
House with respect to Permitted Cover. The proposed Haircut Policy is
designed (i) to set out overall principles with respect to the assets
accepted by the Clearing House as Permitted Cover; (ii) to establish a
framework for determining absolute and relative limits, as applicable,
on the value of the collateral that may be posted by a Clearing Member
as Permitted Cover; (iii) to establish a value-at-risk (``VaR'') based
methodology for determining haircuts for all Permitted Cover; (iv) to
mitigate wrong-way risk from Permitted Cover; (v) to address sources
for pricing Permitted Cover; and (vi) to set out certain related
monitoring, reviewing and reporting procedures. The Haircut Policy
would apply to Permitted Cover provided for all product classes (F&O,
CDS and FX).\4\ Following implementation, the Clearing House will from
time to time adjust the haircuts applicable to Permitted Cover under
the methodology set forth in the policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ICE Clear Europe notes that although the Haircut Policy
generally also applies to Permitted Cover posted with respect to
Guaranty Fund requirements, certain additional requirements apply to
Guaranty Fund contributions under the Rules and Finance Procedures.
Those additional requirements are not proposed to be changed in
connection with the Haircut Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general aims of the proposed Haircut Policy are to ensure that
the Clearing House can efficiently liquidate all forms of Permitted
Cover, that appropriate prices are used for valuation of Permitted
Cover and that appropriate haircuts (including, as applicable, cross-
currency haircuts) are used. The proposed Haircut Policy would codify
certain general principles considered by the Clearing House in
accepting assets as Permitted Cover, including availability of pricing
information, the existence of liquid and active markets for buyers and
sellers of those assets, the existence of sufficient price history, the
ability to liquidate Permitted Cover without causing a market
disruption, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and
sufficient operational and technological framework to handle deposit,
liquidation and return of such assets as Permitted Cover.
    Under the proposed Haircut Policy, cash collateral must be in one
of several specified currencies underlying contracts cleared by the
Clearing House. Additional general requirements would apply to
financial instruments, including prohibitions on acceptance of
instruments that have non-``vanilla'' features such as embedded
options, instruments issued by a Clearing Member or its affiliate,
instruments issued by a CCP or by entities that provide critical
services to the Clearing House (other than central banks) and certain
credit-based limits. Such limits would require that the issuer is rated
at least ``BBB-'' by S&P (or its equivalent), the average yield on the
asset over the previous three months is not greater than 8%, and the 5-
year CDS spread of the issuer has not exceeded 500 basis points over
the previous three months. The proposed Haircut Policy provides that
where market conditions warrant, or where the Clearing House's
sovereign risk model indicates deteriorating credit below a certain
threshold (i.e., ``BBB-'' by S&P), the Clearing House may remove
securities from the list of Permitted Cover and/or vary applicable
haircuts. ICE Clear Europe will notify Clearing Members and other
market participants of such actions by Circular. ICE Clear Europe
maintains the current List of Permitted

Cover (along with haircut rates, limits and restrictions) on its Web
site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/list-of-permitted-covers.pdf.
    The proposed Haircut Policy contains a methodology for setting
absolute limits on the value of non-cash Permitted Cover that can be
posted by a Clearing Member.\5\ Absolute collateral limits would apply
across a group of affiliated Clearing Members and apply across all
product categories cleared by that group. The policy also sets out
relative (or concentration) limits for Permitted Cover provided by a
Clearing Member. ICE Clear Europe publishes on its Web site the current
absolute and relative limits on government bonds provided as Permitted
Cover. In addition, the policy sets out procedures for monitoring of
limits on a daily basis and for remediation of breach of a limit by a
Clearing Member. The risk management department will monitor all
collateral limits on a daily basis using a collateral breakdown report
which flags limit breaches. Breaches will be reviewed internally and
the relevant Clearing Member will be contacted. Breaches can be
remediated by posting additional collateral, removal of collateral that
is in breach of a limit, or both of the above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Clearing House does not impose absolute or relative
limits on the use of U.S. Treasury securities as Permitted Cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The policy also provides for a risk-based reduction in absolute
limits for government bonds based on the credit default swap (``CDS'')
spread for the relevant issuer in order to mitigate wrong-way risk
arising from government bonds accepted as Permitted Cover. Once the
spread exceeds a specified level for a particular issuer, the absolute
limit for Permitted Collateral of that issuer would be reduced pursuant
to a defined formula. If the spread exceeds a second level, the
absolute limit will be reduced to 5% of the otherwise applicable
original limit. Spread levels are determined using a five-day average
to avoid excessive volatility. The specified parameters will be
reviewed on a quarterly basis.
    Specific wrong-way risk arising in connection with clearing of
Western European sovereign CDS is addressed through a requirement that
U.S. dollar denominated collateral be provided for initial margin and
that a portion of the CDS Guaranty Fund be U.S. dollar-based
(determined based on the ratio between the dollar-denominated and Euro-
denominated initial margin requirements for CDS). In addition, where
the member's aggregate short position in sovereign CDS with respect to
a sovereign exceeds a specified threshold, the Clearing House may
decline to accept government bonds of that sovereign or any other
sovereign bonds that exhibit certain correlations with such government
bonds.
    The Haircut Policy also addresses potential wrong-way risk arising
from Permitted Cover more generally. The Clearing House will monitor
collateral on a daily basis. Where the Clearing House considers there
to be strong general wrong-way risk between a Clearing Member and the
asset it is posting, the Clearing House will ask the member to change
the composition of collateral to mitigate that risk.
    The Haircut Policy establishes a VaR-based methodology for
determining haircuts for Permitted Cover. Under the proposed Haircut
Policy, the Clearing House will calculate six different estimations of
VaR for each applicable risk factor. Each estimation is calculated
using a 99.9% confidence interval (applicable to Permitted Cover posted
with respect to all product categories). The proposed haircut will be
based on the largest VaR of the 6 estimations. The policy specifies
relevant price sources that will be used for the calculation of
haircuts for each type of Permitted Cover. Haircuts will be determined
using the bid prices of Permitted Cover assets, in order to account for
higher liquidation costs in stressed markets. The applicable haircuts
will be reviewed on a monthly basis, or more frequently where the risk
management department deems it necessary.
    Under the proposed policy, the risk management department may
further adjust the haircut determined under the model as it determines
prudent in light of additional qualitative and quantitative factors,
including: the Clearing House's credit assessment of the issuer,
current market conditions and volatility, expected future volatility,
the liquidity of the underlying market for the asset, including bid/ask
spread, wrong way risk considerations, VaR estimates determined for a
period of stressed market conditions, and other factors that might
affect the liquidity or value of an asset in stressed market
conditions. ICE Clear Europe anticipates that such adjustments to the
value calculated under the model would be used only in exceptional
circumstances and would expect to use such adjustments to increase
haircuts in stressed market circumstances. ICE Clear Europe has stated
that it will make judicious use of current market information to
override the model but anticipates exercising this ability in less than
5% of haircut rates.
    The proposed Haircut Policy also sets a minimum haircut level of 3%
in order to avoid pro-cyclical variation in haircuts and will review
this minimum level annually under the Haircut Policy. In addition, a
haircut add-on of up to 1% will be applied during the period until the
next monthly review to issuers presenting increased credit risk. The
add-on is applied once the issuer's CDS spread exceeds a specified
level, and increases in steps of 0.25% up to a maximum of 1% where the
CDS spread exceeds higher thresholds. The add-on is generally designed
to anticipate potential haircut increases as part of the next monthly
review cycle.
    The proposed policy also imposes cross-currency haircuts to address
the exchange rate risk faced by the Clearing House where the Permitted
Cover is denominated in a different currency from the currency of the
applicable margin requirement. Under the proposed Haircut Policy,
cross-currency haircuts are determined using the same methodology
described above for other haircuts, but are subject to a minimum
haircut of 4.5%. Cross-currency haircuts will be applied in addition to
any applicable haircut for the relevant form of Permitted Cover.
    The Clearing House will monitor Permitted Cover on a daily and
intraday basis. The Clearing House may, under its existing Rules and
the Haircut Policy, take action to mitigate any change in risk,
including by increasing haircuts, calling for additional collateral,
reducing concentration limits and removing an asset from eligibility as
Permitted Cover. The Clearing House will monitor the value of Permitted
Cover deposited with it on a real time basis. Any change in a member's
intra-day cover value that is greater than 3% will be flagged
immediately by the Risk Management intraday monitoring system that is
monitored by the Risk Management team throughout the business day. Any
breach will be investigated and appropriate action taken where
necessary. The Clearing House also will backtest haircuts based on
price moves observed in the markets on a daily basis, and review
haircut levels if a price move breaches an existing haircut. The
Clearing House will prepare daily reports with respect to Permitted
Cover for purposes of internal monitoring and provide monthly reports
to the relevant Risk Committees and Board Risk Committee.
    The Clearing House will review the Haircut Policy on an annual
basis (which will include review by the Board Risk Committee) or where
there is a material change to the risk exposure of the Clearing House.
The Haircut Policy

also will be independently reviewed annually under the Clearing House's
model governance framework.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \6\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \7\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. The proposed Haircut Policy will codify the general
principles and limitations for assets accepted by ICE Clear Europe as
Permitted Cover. The proposed policy also provides a framework for
ensuring that appropriate prices are used to value Permitted Cover and
establishes a VaR-based methodology, utilizing six different
estimations for each applicable risk factor and calculating each
estimation using a 99.9% confidence interval, for determining haircuts
to ensure that the value of Permitted Cover held by ICE Clear Europe is
sufficient to cover the Clearing House's Margin and Guaranty Fund
requirements. The policy also provides a methodology for setting
absolute and relative concentration limits on particular bonds a
Clearing Member may provide as Permitted Cover to guard against
liquidity and concentration risks and establishes several measures
designed to mitigate wrong-way-risk. In addition, the proposed policy
provides procedures for the regular review and monitoring of Permitted
Cover and associated haircuts and permits the Clearing House to respond
promptly to changes in market conditions by modifying haircuts or other
limits on Permitted Cover. Accordingly, the Commission believes that
the Haircut Policy is designed to appropriately value Permitted Cover
and enable ICE Clear Europe to efficiently and effectively liquidate
all forms of accepted Permitted Cover to satisfy its payment
obligations in the event of a Clearing Member default. The Commission
therefore finds that the proposed rule change is designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \10\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-007) be,
and hereby is, approved.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12032 Filed 5-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Technical Support Document

for the Final

Ozone NAAQS Regional Impact Analysis

Potential for Reducing NOx Emissions from EGU Sources on High Energy
Demand Days with Energy Efficiency Measures

EPA Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0225

March 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Background

Existing state and regional strategies have resulted in substantial
reductions of ozone and attainment of the NAAQS in most of the U.S.
However, ozone episodes continue to be a problem in some highly
populated areas of the Eastern United States and are expected to
continue to be a problem despite aggressive regulatory measures to
reduce precursor NOx emissions.  Some of these areas projected to remain
as nonattainment areas with “known future controls” as presented in
Chapter 3 of the Final Ozone NAAQS RIA.

A number of efforts have been undertaken to consider strategies to
address ozone originating from EGUs or peak ozone days.  These include
efforts by OTC as part of their HEDD Initiation efforts in 2006, by MIT
(partially funded by EPA), and work EPA has done both in support of the
OTC HEDD effort and for Ozone NAAQS RIA.

MIT Study

The Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at MIT has been
working on approaches to demonstrate potential reductions available in
NOx emissions from power sector. Their recent report titled “Time and
Location Differentiated NOx Control in Competitive Electricity Markets
Using Cap-and-Trade Mechanisms” presents the details of proposed
approaches and the next steps (see Attachment).

The MIT study investigated the possibility of the mismatch between the
relatively uniform incentives to reduce NOx provided by existing
regulatory systems and the highly variant temporal and locational impact
of NOx precursor emissions on ozone formation in any given area.  They
previously have found evidence that NOx emissions are reduced at times
during the summer season when the formation of ozone is unlikely and
when the damages caused by ozone are relatively low.

To demonstrate the potential for reductions in NOx emissions in the
short run, they simulated the magnitude of NOx reductions that can be
achieved at various locations and times as a consequence of redispatch
of generating units taking supply-demand balance constraints and network
congestion into account.  The estimated maximum potential reductions,
which occur at NOx pricess of about 125,000/ton, are about 8 tons (20%)
hourly in peak electricity demand hours and about 10 tons (50%) in
average demand hours. They found that network constraints have little
effect on the magnitude of the reductions in NOx emissions.

They also used two methods to perform the simulations and found that
hourly reductions of between 6 and 10 tons (14%-44%) were possible on
the highest demand days of 2005 in Classic PJM.

Their plans for future work include estimation of potential reductions
from power plants to weather forecasting and atmospheric chemistry
models in order to determine if the simulated NOx reductions are of the
necessary magnitude to reduce the likelihood of ozone episodes.

HEDD Strategy Demonstration -- Ozone NAAQS Proposal RIA

In the Proposed Ozone NAAQS RIA, EPA has demonstrated additional
reductions available in power sector NOx emissions as co-benefits of
energy efficiency measures during the HEDDs.  The Technical Support
Document titled “Energy Efficiency Approach for Reducing NOx Emissions
from EGU Sources (Description and Analysis)” presents description and
analysis of this study (EPA Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0225, July
2007).

Increasing energy efficiency reduces energy demand, which would lessen
the demand for high emitting peaking units to operate on high demand
days (particularly if the energy efficiency measures are designed to
target peak end uses such as residential or commercial air conditioning
or commercial lighting).  As part of the OTC HEDD Initiative, the OTC
and EPA conducted analyses to project the effect of increased energy
efficiency on power sector emissions that could, in turn, help improve
air quality on high electricity demand days.

Given the high number of ozone nonattainment areas in the OTC region,
EPA looked in greater detail at changes in this region.  Within the OTC,
we analyzed a potential energy efficiency strategy that resulted in a
decrease in annual NOx emissions of roughly 4,400 tons (3%), and a
decrease in ozone season NOx emissions of 450 tons (1%).  As expected,
the reduced growth in demand does not lead to overall changes in
nationwide annual emissions in the presence of an emissions cap, but it
does change the temporal distribution of those emissions.  Because the
electricity demand was scaled downwards in this scenario, demand on
HEDDs does not reach the same peak it would under the base case.  The
reduced demand results in fewer tons of NOx emissions on these days.

At the annual level, the analysis showed little or no change in NOx
emissions, as sources continue to emit at the CAIR cap levels, however,
daily emissions in the OTC are reduced overall, on average 3 tons.  Many
of the peaking days for NOx emissions are the HEDD days during the ozone
season, show a reduction in emissions under the energy efficiency
scenario.  When examining hourly generation in the OTC, the 120 highest
emitting hours of the year (almost all of which are during the ozone
season) show an average of 3 tons (10%) hourly reduction in emissions
under the energy efficiency scenario. On the whole, the significant
reductions in emissions occurring on HEDD days, and during the ozone
season in general, would potentially help some of these counties achieve
attainment status under the proposed new ozone standard.

Ongoing EPA Work

Building on the analysis presented in the Proposed Ozone NAAQS RIA, EPA
is developing an improved modeling platform to demonstrate potential air
quality benefits available through energy efficiency measures.  Other
studies summarized above demonstrated the potential emissions reductions
in NOx from power sector, however, no representative air quality
modeling analysis has been conducted so far to demonstrate the potential
reductions available in ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations.  EPA’s
improved modeling platform is not limited to analyze energy efficiency
scenarios only, it can be used to analyze command-and-control or
time-and-location differentiated cap-and-trade HEDD scenarios as well.

The new modeling platform incorporates the following improvements:

IPM (Integrated Planning Model) which simulates the power sector
behavior under cap and trade programs now generates hourly emissions (in
contrast to total summer and winter season emissions) at the unit level.

IPM and air quality modeling platform (CMAQ) are being synchronized in
their use of meteorological data and energy demand data.

The emissions processing tool which converts IPM outputs into air
quality modeling inputs is being improved to handle emissions at a much
greater temporal and spatial resolution.  This will allow the new
platform to generate outputs at an appropriate level to detect emission
variations under different HEDD scenarios.

EPA’s demonstration study will utilize the new platform to show
potential air quality benefits available through energy efficiency
measures (as outlined in the Proposed RIA) in the Eastern United States.
 The energy efficiency scenario will be demonstrated building upon the
Policy Scenario presented in the Final ozone NAAQS RIA for 2020.  Our
current plan is to share descriptions and results of this study with the
States and public in general later in 2008.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15587]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF14-4-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 27, 2014, the Western Area Power
Administration submitted a tariff filing per 10 CFR 903.23: DSW--PDP--
162-20140226 to be effective October 1, 2013, Rate Order No. WAPA-162,
concerning extension of the Parker-Davis Project Firm Electric and
Transmission Service Formula Rates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 31, 2014.

    Dated: March 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06117 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50128-50131]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19909]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70162; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 2.5 To Outline the Continuing Education Requirements for Series 56
Licensees and Its Fee Schedule To Include Fees for the Series 56
Examination and Its Related Continuing Education Requirements

August 12, 2013.
    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 August 6, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (1) Exchange Rule 2.5 to: (i)
outline the continuing education requirements for Authorized Traders
\3\ of Members \4\ registered solely as Proprietary Traders \5\ by
having successfully completed the Proprietary Trader Qualification
Examination (``Series 56''); and (ii) make a clarifying change to the
Interpretation and Policy .06; and (2) the fees and rebates applicable
to Members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee
Schedule'') to include fees for the Series 56 examination and its
related continuing education requirements. All of the changes described
herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Authorized Trader'' is defined as ``a person who may
submit orders (or who supervises a routing engine that may
automatically submit orders) to the Exchange's trading facilities on
behalf of his or her Member or Sponsored Participant.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(c).
    \4\ ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer,
or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer, that
has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will have
the status of a ``Member'' of the Exchange as that term is defined
in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \5\ ``Proprietary Trader'' is defined under Interpretation and
Policy .06(2) to Exchange Rule 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend: (1) Rule 2.5 to: (i) outline the
continuing

education requirements for Authorized Traders of Members registered
solely as Proprietary Traders by having successfully completed the
Series 56 examination; and (ii) make a clarifying change to the
Interpretation and Policy .06; and (2) its Fee Schedule to include fees
for the Series 56 examination and its related continuing education
requirements.
    On February 1, 2012, the Exchange amended its rules to recognize a
new category of limited representative registration for Proprietary
Traders \6\ by expanding its registration requirements to include the
Series 56 examination as one of the applicable qualification
examinations accepted by the Exchange.\7\ The Series 56 examination
program is administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') on behalf of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Interpretation and Policy .06(2) of Exchange Rule 2.5
defines a Proprietary Trader as an Authorized Trader whose
activities in the investment banking or securities business are
limited solely to proprietary trading; passes an appropriate
qualification examination; and is an associated person of a
proprietary trading firm as defined in Interpretation and Policy
.06(1) of Exchange Rule 2.5.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66383 (February 10,
2012), 77 FR 9714 (February 17, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-04) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange permits the Series 56 examination for Proprietary
Traders that engage solely in proprietary trading on the Exchange so
long as certain conditions are met. First, the Member must be a
proprietary trading firm.\8\ Second, the Authorized Trader of a Member
must be considered a Proprietary Trader. Interpretation and Policy .03
of Exchange Rule 2.5 identifies the Series 56 as an appropriate
qualification examination for Proprietary Traders' limited
representative registration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If amended as proposed, Interpretation and Policy .06(1) of
Exchange Rule 2.5 would define a proprietary trading firm as a firm
that embodies the following characteristics: The Member is not
required by Section 15(b)(8) of the Act to become a FINRA member;
all funds used or proposed to be used by the Member for trading are
the Member's own capital, traded through the Member's own accounts;
the Member does not, and will not have ``customers''; and all
Principals and Authorized Traders of the Member acting or to be
acting in the capacity of a trader must be owners of, employees of,
or contractors to the Member.
    \9\ For Authorized Traders of Members who do not engage solely
in proprietary trading, the Exchange requires the General Securities
Representative Examination (``Series 7'') or equivalent foreign
examination module approved by the Exchange as defined in
Interpretation and Policy .05 of Exchange Rule 2.5. See
Interpretation and Policy .03 of Exchange Rule 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series 56 Continuing Education Requirements
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .04 to
Rule 2.5 to outline the continuing education requirements for
Authorized Traders of Members registered solely as Proprietary Traders
by having successfully completed the Series 56 examination. Like the
Series 56 exam, FINRA is to administer the continuing education program
on behalf of the Exchange. Proprietary Traders who hold the Series 56
registration pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 2.5
would be required to complete the related continuing education
administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange known as the S501.
Authorized Traders of Members who hold the Series 7 registration would
continue to complete the Regulatory Element for Continuing Education
Requirement (``Regulatory Element'') known as the S101.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .04
to Rule 2.5 to apply the same criteria to the S501 as it currently
requires for the S101 as part of the Regulatory Element. First, like
the Regulatory Element, the S501 must be completed within 120 days
after the respective registration anniversary date. A person's initial
registration date, also known as the ``base date,'' shall establish the
cycle of anniversary dates. Second, Series 56 registrants who have not
completed the S501 within the prescribed time frames will have their
registrations deemed inactive until such time as such requirements have
been satisfied. Any person whose registration has been deemed inactive
shall cease all activities as a Proprietary Trader and will be
prohibited from performing any duties and functioning in any capacity
requiring registration. A registration that is inactive for a period of
two years will be administratively terminated. A person whose
registration is terminated may reactivate the registration only by
reapplying for registration under the Exchange rules.
    Similar to the requirements for the Regulatory Element,\10\ a
Proprietary Trader--Series 56 license holder will be required to re-
satisfy the S501 where that person: (1) Is subject to any statutory
disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Act; (2) is
subject to suspension or to the imposition of a fine of $5,000 or more
for violation of any provision of any securities law or regulation, or
any agreement with or rule or standard of conduct of any securities
governmental agency, securities self-regulatory organization, or as
imposed by any such regulatory or self-regulatory organization in
connection with a disciplinary proceeding; or (3) is ordered as a
sanction in a disciplinary action to retake the S501 by any securities
governmental agency or self-regulatory organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Interpretation and Policy .04 of Exchange Rule 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the Regulatory Element, the retaking of the S501 must commence
within 120 days of the Proprietary Trader--Series 56 license holder
becoming subject to the statutory disqualification, in the case of (1)
above, or the disciplinary action becoming final, in the case of (2)
and (3) above. The date of the disciplinary action shall be treated as
such person's new base date with the Exchange.
    Any Proprietary Trader--Series 56 license holder who has terminated
association with a Member and who has, within two years of the date of
termination, become reassociated in a registered capacity with a Member
shall satisfy the S501 at such intervals that may apply (second
anniversary and every three years thereafter) based on the initial
registration anniversary date rather than based on the date of
reassociation in a registered capacity.
    The Exchange proposes to include the Series 56 continuing education
requirement in its rules to ensure Authorized Traders of Members
maintain specified levels of competence and knowledge generally
applicable to proprietary trading, thereby enhancing the quality of
Authorized Traders on the Exchange. Thus, the codification of these
requirements in the proposed amendments to Rule 2.5 makes clear to
Members their requirements related to the Series 56 exam, including
applicable continuing education requirements.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the Series 56 continuing
education program upon availability in WebCRD[supreg], the central
licensing and registration system operated by FINRA (``WebCRD'').
Clarification to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 2.5
    The Exchange proposes to delete unnecessary language from
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 2.5. Currently, Interpretation
and Policy .06(1) of Rule 2.5 defines a proprietary trading firm. As
part of the definition, the Member must not be required by Section
15(b)(8) of the Act \11\ to become a FINRA member but is a member of
another registered securities exchange not registered solely under
Section 6(g) of the Act.\12\ The Exchange proposes to delete the
requirement that the Member must also be a member of another registered
securities exchange. The

proprietary trading firm need only be a current Exchange Member and not
required to be a FINRA Member by Section 15(b)(8) of the Act.\13\
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete this requirement from its
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(g).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series 56 Exam and Continuing Education Fees
    The Exchange proposes to add to its Fee Schedule a $195 fee per
person, per Series 56 examination and a $60 per person, per session fee
for the related continuing education. The Exchange's Fee Schedule does
not currently set forth the fees applicable for the Series 7 and
Regulatory Element as these programs are within FINRA's jurisdiction
and collected by FINRA from its members. On the contrary, the Series 56
and its continuing education requirements apply to Members that are not
required by Section 15(b)(8) of the Act \14\ to become a FINRA member.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to include these fees in its Fee
Schedule to make clear to Members the costs of the Series 56 exam and
its related continuing education. However, Members would continue to
submit the exam fee to FINRA, as well as the fee for continuing
education.\15\ The Exchange will not invoice or collect these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(8).
    \15\ The Exchange notes that FINRA has historically collected
the $195 Series 56 examination fee on behalf of the Exchange to
cover its cost of administering the Series 56 exam program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are designed to reflect the costs incurred in maintaining
and developing the examination and continuing education program to
ensure their content is and continues to be adequate in testing the
competence and knowledge generally applicable to proprietary trading.
2. Statutory Basis
Series 56 Continuing Education Requirements
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to require continuing
education for Authorized Traders of Members that hold the Proprietary
Trader--Series 56 license is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3)(B)
of the Act.\17\ Under that section, it is the Exchange's responsibility
to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for
Exchange Members and their associated persons, in particular, by
offering an alternative continuing education program for Proprietary
Traders that more closely reflects the practical knowledge that is a
pre-requisite for proprietary trading. Pursuant to this statutory
obligation, the Exchange proposes to require Authorized Traders of
Members that hold the Series 56 license to complete the related
continuing education. The Exchange believes the Series 56 continuing
education requirement would enable Authorized Traders of Members to
maintain specified levels of competence and knowledge generally
applicable to proprietary trading. Thus, the codification of these
requirements in the proposed amendments to Rule 2.5 makes clear to
Members their requirements related to the Series 56 exam, including
applicable continuing education requirements, by codifying such
requirements in the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the principles of Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act
\18\ in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and
dealers and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule will promote uniformity of regulation across markets,
thus reducing opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.\19\ The proposed
rule change helps ensure that all persons conducting a securities
business through the Exchange are appropriately registered and maintain
specified levels of competence, as the Commission expects of all self-
regulatory organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(ii).
    \19\ See infra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clarification to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 2.5
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to delete unnecessary
language from Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 2.5 is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \20\ and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in that it is designed to 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 by
eliminating unnecessary confusion with respect to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange proposes to delete the requirement that the Member must
also be a member of another registered securities exchange because it
is superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Series 56 Exam and Continuing Education Fees
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed examination and
continuing education fees are consistent with the objectives of Section
6 of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4),\23\ in particular, in that they are designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its Members. The Series 56 examination and continuing education
fees are reasonably designed to allow FINRA to cover its cost of
administering the Series 56 exam program on behalf of the Exchange. The
fee for the Series 56 exam is greater than the fee for continuing
education because the exam fee is also designed to cover the costs
associated with developing not just the Series 56 exam, but also the
related S501 continuing education program. The S501 continuing
education fee is set to only cover the costs of administering the
continuing education sessions. The Exchange notes that it will not
invoice or collect funds from Members that are subject to these fees
because these fees will be paid directly to FINRA. FINRA incurs costs
in maintaining and developing the examination and continuing education
program to ensure their content is and continues to be adequate in
testing the competence and knowledge generally applicable to
proprietary trading. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable
and equitable to include these fees in its Fee Schedule to make clear
to Members the costs of the Series 56 exam and its related continuing
education requirement. The Exchange also believes these fees are
reasonable because it understands that other exchanges will be
assessing identical fees to be collected by FINRA for the Series 56
exam and continuing education program.\24\ In addition, the Exchange
believes these fees are not

unfairly discriminatory in that they apply to all Members uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \24\ The Exchange participates in the ``Proprietary Traders
Examination Committee'' for the Series 56 exam and continuing
education requirements with the other exchanges. Through this
Committee, the Exchange believes that other exchanges will be
submitting proposed rule changes with the Commission to adopt the
same fees for the Series 56 exam and continuing education. The
exchanges that participate on the Committee include: Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; National
Stock Exchange, Inc.; Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc.; Nasdaq OMX PHLX, LLC;
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; BATS Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and
the International Securities Exchange, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Series 56 Continuing Education Requirements
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to require
continuing education for Authorized Traders of Members that hold the
Series 56 license will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, as amended, because Proprietary Traders must hold a Series 56
license and complete the required continuing education regardless of
the exchange with which they are registered. The proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intramarket competition as all Authorized
Traders of Members that are Proprietary Traders are required to pass
the Series 56 exam and complete the related continuing education as
outlined in Exchange Rule 2.5.
Clarification to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 2.5
    The proposal to delete unnecessary language from Interpretation and
Policy .06(1) to Rule 2.5 does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. This language is superfluous as the Exchange does not, in
practice, require a proprietary trading firm to also be a member of
another exchange.
Series 56 Exam and Continuing Education Fees
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed examination
and continuing education fees will impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal would neither increase
nor decrease intramarket competition because the fees would apply
uniformly to all Members. In addition, the Exchange believes that its
proposal would neither increase nor decrease intermarket competition
because other exchanges will be assessing identical fees to be
collected by FINRA for the Series 56 exam and continuing education
program.

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 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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The proposed rule change specifies the continuing
education requirements for Authorized Traders of Members registered
solely as proprietary traders by having passed the Series 56
examination; deletes unnecessary language from Interpretation and
Policy .06 of Exchange Rule 2.5; and adds to the Exchange's Fee
Schedule the fees for the Series 56 examination and the S501. Waiver of
the operative delay would allow the Exchange to clarify its rules and
implement the proposed rule change without delay once the Series 56
examination fee, S501 continuing education program and the related fee
are available in WebCRD, enabling its Members to comply with their
examination and continuing education requirements in a timely manner,
and thus is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 this 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2013-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-EDGX-2013-31 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19909 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63102-63104]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21881]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0441; A-1-FRL-9952-11-Region I]

Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont.
The revision sets the amount of PM2.5 increment sources are
permitted to consume when obtaining a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit and requires
PM2.5 emission offsets under certain circumstances. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 14, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 14, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2016-0441 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida E. McDonnell, Manager, Air
Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of State Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 PSD
Rule). See 75 FR 64864. This rule established several components for
making PSD permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a
system of ``increments,'' which is the mechanism used to estimate
significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These
increments are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).

II. Summary of State Submittal

    On July 25, 2014, the VT DEC submitted a revision to its state
implementation plan (SIP) primarily addressing permitting requirements
for PM2.5 emissions. In a letter dated July 13, 2016, VT DEC
withdrew some, but not all, of the revisions the State requested in its
2014 SIP submittal. The State withdrew these provisions for various
reasons; either because more information would be needed before certain
provisions could be approved by EPA into the SIP, one provision was
erroneously submitted, or Vermont intends in the near future to revise
certain provisions and resubmit them to EPA. On July 20, 2016, EPA's
Region I Administrator signed a direct final notice approving the
remaining revisions except for revisions Vermont made to its Air
Pollution Control Regulations (APCR), Table 2 (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments) and Table 3 (Levels of
Significant Impact).
    Vermont revised Table 2 by adding increments for PM2.5
as well as some minor grammatical changes. Vermont revised Table 3 by
changing the table's title, removing the level of significant impact
for Total Suspended Particles, and adding levels for PM2.5.
Tables 2 and 3 address different aspects of permitting. Table 2
addresses the amount of a pollutant (increment consumption) a major new
or modified source may contribute to the ambient air consistent with
the CAA's requirements. Table 3 addresses situations in which Vermont's
regulations would require emissions offsets, even for major new or
modified sources that are subject to PSD preconstruction permitting
requirements.

III. Final Action

    EPA has found the PSD increment values added to Table 2 to be
consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(c) and has also found that the increment
values meet the anti-back sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, EPA is approving revised Table 2 into the
Vermont SIP.
    Vermont revised Table 3 by adding thresholds for PM2.5
for Class I, II, and III areas. Major new or modified sources subject
to PSD permitting requirements must obtain emissions offsets if the
listed thresholds would be exceeded in an area found not to be
attaining the national ambient air quality standard. The thresholds in
Table 3 for PM2.5 for Class II and Class III areas are
consistent

with the PM2.5 thresholds in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), while
Vermont's thresholds for Class I areas are significantly more stringent
than the federal regulation. Vermont also removed from Table 3 the
threshold for Total Suspended Particles because EPA's regulations no
longer contain a threshold for this pollutant. EPA currently sets the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter as
PM10 and PM2.5 and no longer sets a standard for
Total Suspended Particles. EPA has found both revisions to Table 3 to
be consistent with 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) and Section 110(l) of the Clean
Air Act. Therefore, EPA is approving revised Table 3 into the Vermont
SIP.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
November 14, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by October 14, 2016.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. 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 proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on November 14, 2016 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule. 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.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Vermont's
Air Pollution Control Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    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 action 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).
    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 November 14, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this 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
notice 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 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart UU--Vermont

0
2. In Sec.  52.2370(c), the table ``EPA Approved Vermont Regulations''
is amended by revising the state citation entries for Table 2 and Table
3 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Table 2..........................  Table 2--PSD               7/5/2014  9/14/2016, [Insert   Added increment
                                    increments.                          Federal Register     thresholds for
                                                                         citation].           PM2.5.
Table 3..........................  Table 3--Levels of         7/5/2014  9/14/2016, [Insert   Added levels for
                                    significant impact.                  Federal Register     PM2.5.
                                                                         citation].

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

[FR Doc. 2016-21881 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28605-28606]
[DOCID:fr21my10-74]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0381; FRL-9143-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pharmaceutical
Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1781.05, OMB Control Number 2060-
0358

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0381 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0381, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, to access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Pharmaceutical Production (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1781.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0358.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pharmaceutical Production (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGG) were proposed on April 2, 1997, and promulgated on
September 21, 1998. These standards apply to the facilities in
pharmaceutical production that are major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). The affected facility is all pharmaceutical
manufacturing operation, which includes process vents, storage tanks,
equipment components, and wastewater systems commencing construction or
reconstruction after the date of the proposal. In general, all NESHAP
require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports.
    Owners/operators of affected pharmaceutical production are required
to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports and records are essential in determining
compliance and, in general, are required of all sources subject to
NESHAP. Semiannual reports are also required.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the records for at
least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance
reports, and records. Performance tests reports are required as this is
the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the
emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions
under which compliance was achieved.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, as

authorized in sections 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The
required information consists of emissions data and other information
that have been determined to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA
regulations listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information estimated to average 178
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose, and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Pharmaceutical production
facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 27.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 44,246.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $4,297,480 which includes $4,185,214
in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $112,266 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment in the labor hours
in this ICR, compared to the previous ICR. The labor burden is
decreased compared to the most recently approved ICR due to a reduction
in the number of sources. The reduction was caused by a number of
sources becoming synthetic area minor sources before the compliance
date. All of the sources subject to the standard are major sources.
    There is a decrease in the capital/startup and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs from the previous ICR due to the decrease in
the number of sources.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-12273 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


\* mergeformat                                                                      Memorandum U.S. Department  of Transportation

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

                                                                       Subject: Application of NEMS for Final Rule Regarding MY 2021-2026 CAFE and CO2 Standards

                                                                          Date: March 28, 2020                                                                           From:

                                                                            To: Kevin Green Chief, CAFE Program Office OST/R, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Docket Numbers NHTSA-2017-0069 and NHTSA-2018-0067                                                                               :

To develop some inputs (e.g., projections of future fuel prices) to analysis informing decisions regarding final Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and CO2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks produced during model years (MYs) 2021-2026, Volpe Center staff exercised the 2019 version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS).  NEMS is a modeling system maintained by the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Energy Information Administration (EIA), which uses NEMS to, among other things, produce EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).  Information regarding AEO is available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/, and information regarding the availability of NEMS is available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/info_nems_archive.php.

The Volpe Center's application of NEMS for this analysis is discussed in Section VI.D.b.1(b)(1), titled "Macroeconomic assumptions used to analyze economic consequences of the final rule" of the Notice promulgating the above-mentioned standards.  As discussed in the Notice, the Center's modifications to EIA's AEO 2019 Reference case are all contained in the "NEMS_SAFE_rule.trnldvx_input.xlsx" NEMS input file accompanying this memorandum.  Among the corresponding NEMS output files, the CAFE/CO2 analysis made use of values in the "NEMS_SAFE_rule.api_output.csv" file also accompanying this memorandum.


[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2950-2951]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for
Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes,

additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to
the application number. Application numbers with the suffix ``M''
denote a modification request. These applications have been separated
from the new application for special permits to facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2011.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://
regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 10, 2011.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Docket                              Regulation(s)       Nature of special
          Application No.              No.           Applicant              affected           permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7945-M............................  .........  Pacific Scientific,    49 CFR                To modify the
                                                Duarte, CA.            173.304(a)(1);        special permit to
                                                                       175.3.                authorize
                                                                                additional 2.2
                                                                                hazardous materials
                                                                                in non-DOT
                                                                                specification
                                                                                cylinders.
14867-M...........................  .........  GTM Manufacturing,     49 CFR 173.302a,      To modify the
                                                LLC, Amarillo, TX.     173.304a.             special permit to
                                                                                authorize
                                                                                additional modes of
                                                                                transportation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-831 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44804]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18435]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0168; FRL-9999-00-OAR]

Section 610 Review of ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program''; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 22, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') published an entry in the Spring 2019 Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions announcing that EPA will review the
rulemaking ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to
Renewable Fuel Standard Program'' pursuant to section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of this review is to determine
if the provisions that could affect small entities should be continued
without change, should be rescinded, or amended to minimize adverse
economic impacts on small entities. The entry invited public comment on
this proposal via the established docket on Regulations.gov by August
22, 2019--90 days after publication of the Spring 2019 Unified Agenda
of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. On August 15, 2019, EPA
received a request from the Small Refiners Coalition to extend the
comment period by 30 days to allow its members to provide thorough
comments and data. On August 16, 2019, EPA received a similar request
from the Small Retailers Coalition. EPA is extending the deadline for
written comments an additional 30 days to September 23, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0168, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method) Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: Submit your comments on EPA's section 610 review
referenced above, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0168, at
http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other methods
identified above. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed
from the docket. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Mroz, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA rulemaking that is the subject of
this review was published on March 26, 2010, at 75 FR 14670. For the
reasons noted above, the public comment period for this review will now
end on September 23, 2019.

    Dated: August 20, 2019.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2019-18435 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P