[Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 39145-39147]
[DOCID:fr05jy11-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64762; File No. SR-NYSE-2011-30]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Extending the Operation of Its Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot
Until the Earlier of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Approval
To Make Such Pilot Permanent or January 31, 2012

June 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 21, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Supplemental
Liquidity Providers Pilot (``SLP Pilot'' or ``Pilot'') (See Rule 107B),
currently scheduled to expire on August 1, 2011, until the earlier of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's (``Commission'') approval to
make such Pilot permanent or January 31, 2012. The text of the

proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Supplemental
Liquidity Providers Pilot,\3\ currently scheduled to expire on August
1, 2011, until the earlier of Commission approval to make such Pilot
permanent or January 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58877 (October 29,
2008), 73 FR 65904 (November 5, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-108)
(establishing the SLP Pilot). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 59869 (May 6, 2009), 74 FR 22796 (May 14, 2009) (SR-
NYSE-2009-46) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to October
1, 2009); 60756 (October 1, 2009), 74 FR 51628 (October 7, 2009)
(SR-NYSE-2009-100) (extending the operation of the New Market Model
and the SLP Pilots to November 30, 2009); 61075 (November 30, 2009),
74 FR 64112 (December 7, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-119) (extending the
operation of the SLP Pilot to March 30, 2010); 61840 (April 5,
2010), 75 FR 18563 (April 12, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-28) (extending the
operation of the SLP Pilot to September 30, 2010); 62813 (September
1, 2010), 75 FR 54686 (September 8, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-62)
(extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to January 31, 2011); and
63616 (December 29, 2010), 76 FR 612 (January 5, 2011) (SR-NYSE-
2010-86) (extending the operation of the SLP Pilot to August 1,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The information contained herein is a summary of the NMM
Pilot and the SLP Pilot. See supra note 4 [sic] for a fuller
description of those pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2008, the NYSE implemented significant changes to its
market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of
its market participants all of which were designed to improve execution
quality on the Exchange. These changes are all elements of the
Exchange's enhanced market model referred to as the ``New Market
Model'' (``NMM Pilot'').\5\ The SLP Pilot was launched in coordination
with the NMM Pilot (see Rule 107B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE eliminated the function of
specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market
participant, the Designated Market Maker or DMM.\6\ Separately, the
NYSE established the SLP Pilot, which established SLPs as a new class
of market participants to supplement the liquidity provided by DMMs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 103.
    \7\ See NYSE Rule 107B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SLP Pilot is scheduled to end operation on August 1, 2011 or
such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make the rules
permanent. The Exchange is currently preparing a rule filing seeking
permission to make the SLP Pilot permanent, but does not expect that
filing to be completed and approved by the Commission before August 1,
2011.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NMM Pilot was scheduled to expire on August 1, 2011. On
June 21, 2011, 2011 the Exchange filed to extend the NMM Pilot until
January 31, 2012. See SR-NYSE-2011-29). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 63618 (December 29, 2010) 76 FR 617 (January 5,
2011) (SR-NYSE-2010-85) (extending the operation of the New Market
Model Pilot to August 1, 2011); 62819 (September 1, 2010), 75 FR
54937 (September 9, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-61) (extending the operation
of the New Market Model Pilot to January 31, 2011); 61724 (March 17,
2010), 75 FR 14221 (SR-NYSE-2010-25) (extending the operation of the
New Market Model Pilot to September 30, 2010); and 61031 (November
19, 2009), 74 FR 62368 (SR-NYSE-2009-113) (extending the operation
of the New Market Model Pilot to March 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the SLP Pilot
    The NYSE established the SLP Pilot to provide incentives for
quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity
providers, including the DMMs, and add new competitive market
participants. The Exchange believes that the SLP Pilot, in coordination
with the NMM Pilot, allows the Exchange to provide its market
participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market
structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the
trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward
aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the
rules governing the SLP Pilot (Rule 107B) should be made permanent.
Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation
of the SLP Pilot until January 31, 2012, in order to allow the Exchange
to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the Pilot rule
to a permanent rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NYSE Amex SLP Pilot (NYSE Amex Equities Rule 107B) is
also being extended until January 31, 2012 or until the Commission
approves it as permanent (See SR-NYSEAmex-2011-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the instant filing is consistent with these principles
because the SLP Pilot provides its market participants with a trading
venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the
addition of liquidity and operates to reward aggressive liquidity
providers. Moreover, the instant filing requesting an extension of the
SLP Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare
and submit a filing to make the rules governing the SLP Pilot
permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the
19b-4 approval process.

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

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

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if

consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2011-30 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-NYSE-2011-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices
of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2011-30, and should be submitted on or before July 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16688 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28785-28787]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13321]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0911]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Red River, Shreveport, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the draws of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, and
the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2, across the Red River at
Shreveport, LA. This proposed rule would allow the drawbridges to
permanently remain in the closed-to-navigation position, no longer
opening for vessel traffic. While there is vessel traffic on the
waterway, no one has requested that either drawbridge open since 2007.
Union Pacific Railroad and Midsouth Railroad, the bridge owners,
requested to update the operating schedule accordingly.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0911 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western
Rivers, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the draws of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, and
the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2, across the Red River at
Shreveport, LA. The Red River extends approximately 294.0 miles from
mile marker 304.0 on the Lower Mississippi River to Shreveport, LA,
then through Twelve Mile and Cypress Bayous to its head of navigation
near Daingerfield, TX. Regulations for the operation of drawbridges on
the Red River are contained in 33 CFR 117.491. The Union Pacific
Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, and the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile
228.2, are currently the only bridges governed by the regulations in 33
CFR 117.491(c), which state that, ``the draws of the bridges above mile
105.8 through mile 234.4 shall open on signal if at least 48 hours
notice is given.''
    Navigation on the Red River in the vicinity of these bridges
consists primarily of recreational craft, and commercial use of the
waterway is only possible during periods of high water. Moreover, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not maintain any project depth or
navigable channel on this reach of the Red River, nor does the U.S.
Coast Guard maintain any aids to navigation above mile 211.4. Under 33
CFR 117.491(d), the bridges above mile 234.4 need not open for the
passage of vessels. There are no alternate routes for vessels
transiting this section of the Red River.
    Union Pacific Railroad owns the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, mile
227.0, across the Red River at Shreveport, LA, and has requested that
the drawbridge regulation be amended to allow the bridge to remain in
the permanently closed position. Union Pacific provided the Coast Guard
with bridge logs that indicate that there has been no request for a
bridge opening since 2007. In the closed position, the Union Pacific
Railroad bridge, mile 227.0, provides 15.1 feet of vertical clearance
at mean high water.
    Midsouth Railroad owns the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2,
across the Red River at Shreveport, LA, and has also requested that the
drawbridge remain in the permanently closed position. Midsouth Railroad
provided the Coast Guard with bridge logs that indicate that there has
been no request for a bridge opening since 2007. In the closed
position, the Midsouth Railroad bridge, mile 228.2, provides 37.0 feet
of vertical clearance at mean high water.
    Under 33 CFR 117.39, the District Commander may authorize a
drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position and be
untended when there have been no requests for drawbridge openings for
two years. Due to the lack of significant navigation on this portion of
the Red River that requires draws to open and the fact that there has
been no request to open the draws in over ten years, the Coast Guard
believes that this proposed rule is reasonable, and if implemented,
should continue to meet the present and future needs of navigation.
Based on the records provided by Union Pacific Railroad and Midsouth
Railroad, it is expected that the proposed change will have no known
impact to navigation or other waterway users. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority of 33 U.S.C. 499.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.491(c), which governs
the operating schedule of the draws of the Union Pacific Railroad
bridge, mile marker (MM) 227.0 and the Midsouth Railroad bridge, MM
228.2, across the Red River at Shreveport, LA. The regulation currently
requires the draws of the bridges above mile 105.8 through mile 234.4
to open on signal if at least 48 hours' notice is given. This proposed
rule would allow the bridges to remain closed to the passage of
vessels. However, pursuant to 33 CFR 117.39, this rulemaking would
include a provision that requires the owner or agency controlling the
bridge to the draw to full operation within three months if the
District Commander provides a notification that needs of navigation
require resumed operation of the spans. The regulatory text and changes
we are proposing appear at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that
these drawbridges do not currently open for the passage of vessels due
to the lack of navigation on the river. The last recorded opening of
the drawbridges was in 2007. Consultation with the bridge owners
indicated that currently no bridge tender positions are assigned to the
bridges.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves changing
the operating schedule that governs the draws of two bridges on the Red
River near Shreveport, LA to remain permanently closed to navigation.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review,
under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration is not required for this proposed rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.491, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

 Sec.  117.491   Red River.

* * * * *
    (c) The draws of the bridges above mile 105.8 through mile 234.4
need not open for passage of vessels. The owner or agency controlling
the bridge must restore the draw to full operation within three months
if notified by the District Commander that the needs of navigation
require resumed operation of the spans.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
P.F. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-13321 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Date:
January 12, 2012
Subject:
Peer Review of a Refining Industry Cost Model
From:
Sandra Burns, RTI International
To:
Lester Wyborny, US EPA

1.0 Background
An independent, third-party peer review was conducted of a refinery-by-refinery cost model developed by EPA.  The Cost Model Spreadsheet developed by EPA models the cost  for each refinery to  reduce their gasoline sulfur levels. This memo is a summary of the observations and recommendations of Mr. Charles Lieder. The review was facilitated by RTI International.
2.0 Initial Observations
Mr. Lieder noted that the submitted Technical Package (Cost Model Spreadsheet and supporting files) can only be read and understood if the third-party reviewer has almost unlimited access to the EPA Author(s). The Technical Package is a working draft from the desks of the EPA Author(s).  With their instruction, a reviewer can understand the concepts behind the Cost Model Spreadsheet.
 3.0 Summary Comments
EPA requested that six areas be peer reviewed. These are numbered one through six below, and are followed by Mr. Lieder's comments.

1.  Review and comment on the overall design of the refinery-by-refinery cost model for estimating the cost of sulfur control, including: (a) The means for modeling each refinery's operations, including their gasoline volume and sulfur level as tools for calibration, (b) the use of FCC naphtha desulfurization equipment as the most cost-effective means for reducing gasoline sulfur levels, and (c) comment on how the refinery-by-refinery cost model could be improved.

 (a) Based on the Nov 9[th] RIA provided to the reviewer and the Model's "refinery-core-calculations" (developed in MSAT / Benzene Regulation modeling), the spreadsheet modeling is appropriate and similar to approaches used in the U.S. refining industry.  EPA's access to confidential refinery-specific operations information from EIA (in the peer review model) and gasoline volumes and quality information available from its own reformulated gasoline data base (removed from the peer review model), provides the model a firm foundation for checking calculations and subsequent calibration.

 (b) EPA selection of a `FCC naphtha desulfurization' strategy is appropriate and should be the cost-effective path.  Recently, a July 2011 API Study, Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline with refinery modeling (Baker & O'Brien, 2011) relied heavily on FCC naphtha desulfurization to attain a Gasoline Pool sulfur level of less than 10 ppm. The refinery modeling study done by Mathpro also relied on FCC naptha HT (Mathpro, 2011).

 (c) Because the EPA reformulated gasoline quality and volume data which it could use for calibrating the model are confidential, the Peer Review cannot include them or evaluate the original, corrections, refinements, or final EPA selections for calculations.  Therefore, the Peer Review must look at the current spreadsheet and it is acceptable. The main improvement area is in capital cost data for desulfurization of FCC naphtha and Light Straight Run / Natural Gas Liquids.
 (d) The clarity, understanding and logic flow of the spreadsheet model could be enhanced by descriptive titles and comment fields for key data and calculations.

The overall design of the refinery-by-refinery cost model is appropriate since it contains both a sound data foundation (assumed as firm on basis of EPA's statements about their source of confidential data and its use in calibration) and an accepted design / methodology for refinery spreadsheet calculations and cost estimations.

2.  Review and comment on the inputs for the various desulfurization technologies provided to EPA to ensure that these are being represented adequately to correctly estimate the desulfurization costs.

 EPA sought inputs and cost information for the desulfurization technologies which would be predominant in a near-term Tier 3 Fuels Sulfur Program.  Unfortunately, only one source provided detailed, complete engineering information which could be the basis for confident estimation of capital costs for the necessary new desulfurization targets. Thus to move the calculations forward, EPA has currently had to make numerous assumptions and estimations to select and calculate desulfurization costs for the technologies for which they do not have technically complete engineering information.

EPA must clearly communicate this situation to potential users of the results of the Cost Model Spreadsheet (or users of spreadsheet). Mr. Lieder recommends that EPA make another `request for information' of a detailed engineering nature (citing the type of information that was received from one desulfurization vendor).

3.  Review and comment on the sulfur levels assigned to each gasoline blendstock.

The Nov 9[th] RIA describes the logic of Tier 2 and potential Tier 3 sulfur levels of refinery blendstocks. The document provides an appropriate display of technically-sound blendstock levels.

4.  Review and comment on the assumption that some refiners will need to desulfurize their LSR to comply with lower sulfur gasoline.

Assumption of the need to desulfurize LSR and NGL is technically sound.  Other studies note the desulfurization of `straight-run naphthas'; and details of use in their appendices (Baker & O'Brien, 2011; Mathpro, 2011). EPA's approach to premise desulfurization of all LSR / NGL with either existing,  revamped, or new units is a technically sound way to estimate the potential impact of a Tier 3 Fuel Sulfur Program.

5.   Review and comment on our means for estimating the blendstock volumes for each refinery.

The  Nov 9[th] RIA provided a  well-documented set of analyses that document how the blendstock volumes were estimated in the cost model. It is sound, transparent and supported by substantial data and references.

6.   Ensure the integrity of the refinery-by-refinery cost model by working through the equations present throughout the spreadsheet. Check the equations throughout the spreadsheet with sufficient frequency (i.e., one refinery in each PADD) to ensure that the refinery model formulas refer to the appropriate cells. Report any errors.

For production of 10 ppmS Gasoline Pool, 13 refineries (out of the ~101 refineries)  were checked  for the "Costs 10ppm" worksheet calculation  and the background calculations which covered data and calculations from almost every worksheet that was reviewed; especially T3,, Proc 1  -  Proc4, Crude Regression, Vendor Cost Info, 09 ref cap data, Data for 2009, and Utility & Capital Costs.  The methodology of the cost calculation was sound for these 13 refineries. For one unique technology implementation, a calculation error was identified and communicated to EPA

For production of 5 ppmS gasoline pool, 8 of the above 13 refineries were checked for the `Costs 5ppm' worksheet calculation and the background calculations which covered almost every worksheet. Again, the methodology of the cost calculation was sound for these 8 refineries (for same unique technology implementation, a calculation error was identified) .
4.0 Detailed Comments
EPA provided several cost-estimates from various sources; these were the basis for EPA's analysis of sulfur-reduction technologies and generation of capital cost estimates to be used by refineries in the main Cost Model spreadsheet.
4.1 Cost Model Calculation Methodology
Basically, the methodology and flow-of-calculation is technically-sound. Note that that the review will subsequently comment on the soundness of the data (such as capital costs) that are used in this methodology and the exact decision points for technology choices in sulfur reduction strategies for a refinery. One key worksheet in the model pulls together the cost model data and methodology to produce the estimated cost to comply with a 10 ppmS gasoline pool requirement on a refinery-by-refinery basis. Mr. Lieder conducted an analysis of 13 refineries which permitted an in-depth understanding of the EPA approach. The following key aspects were noted.

   * Appropriately addressing the status of and need for additional FCC naphtha desulfurization. methodology, calculations and logic flow is defensible.

   * Addressing the comparison between maximum-estimated FCC Gasoline and  actual 2009 FCC gasoline: about a dozen refineries have larger actual 2009 than the maximum-estimated; however, the spreadsheet always used maximum-estimated in subsequent calculation.  EPA needs to decide which MAX FCC gasoline volume is used for sizing FCC post treaters.

   * Methodology uses extensive reference data from the Utility & Capital Costs worksheet. The data and use calculations are appropriate. However, Mr. Lieder found an error in the refinery/PADD association; EPA should make certain that refineries are associated with correct PADD.

   * For the appropriate FCC desulfurization technology and sulfur level for a particular refinery this fuel program cost calculation relies on many data inputs. Again, data from the utility & capital costs worksheet is used extensively; some EPA assumptions are embedded in the Utility & Capital Costs worksheet (such as return on investment (ROI) of 7% and fixed operating costs as 6.7% of capital cost). More documentation as to where this data is used would be useful.

   * Also, for the appropriate FCC desulfurization technology and sulfur level for a particular refinery,  the crucial inputs are the capital costs and associated operating costs.  Current input data required extensive EPA analysis and calculation as well as capital selection (see extensive discussion in RIA). EPA needs to re-request detailed engineering input on capital costs (for new or revamped or expanded FCC post treaters) from the public.

   * For one refinery the total cost section needs to be reviewed. EPA needs to review equations in the LSR Addition / Expansion section for total capital employed, as an error was found and there is a chance that several equations need to be revised.  This was communicated to EPA, and Mr. Lieder believes it is likely that this is the only refinery with this specific calculation error.
4.2 Vendor Cost input Information and Use by EPA
EPA received only limited technical information from vendors. Thus, for the refinery that must meet potential Tier 3 Fuel Program requirements, EPA had to assess the level and range of sulfur reductions, and propose various technologies which can be added to current refineries and estimate the capital and operating cost of those various technologies. Because such limited data was made available, EPA had to modify the information provided, extrapolate for several cases and estimate substantial areas of cost and operating factors. Thus, EPA's cost estimates do not have broad input from engineering and construction firms. If feasible, EPA should seek additional capital cost estimates and/or input from an expert in capital cost estimation.

Mr. Lieder reviewed the worksheet containing capital cost information. The following key aspects were noted.

   *       A detailed description of the logic flow and results is needed. EPA needs to critically review the results.  Because of the lack of detailed interpretation of data in their submittal, EPA had to take a circuitous route to the presented numbers. The capital costs of Vendor 1 were not well documented and therefore the reviewer was unable to comment critically on the validity of EPA's capital cost estimate.

   *       Although possibly futile, EPA should consider other routes to obtaining additional capital cost estimates such as another Request For Information; contracting with capital cost experts or a refining consultant .
4.3 Methodology for Individual Refinery Selection of Sulfur-reduction Technology for Tier 3 Sulfur Targets
The methodology can be defended; but is open to a rational technical discussion of decision points and criteria of technology choices from others who may have slightly different technical criteria.
The methodology for individual refinery decisions on FCC Naphtha and LSR/NGL desulfurization is described in the RIA and is a useful background.
4.4 Calculating EPA's Fuel Program Costs with Cost Model
1. Refinery Capacity methodology:  EPA has obtained data from EIA; the experts on such U.S. data.  Best source of U.S. data collected under DOE-EIA legal imperative.

2. Blendstock Production Volumes methodology: The methodology was peer- reviewed for the benzene reduction rulemaking / model spreadsheet. A quick review of the methodology shows that the approach is detailed and in-line with other technical approaches. This explanation of "Estimating Individual Refinery Gasoline Blendstock Volumes" in the Nov 9[th] RIA is more than eight pages of tables and analysis. This well-documented set of analyses is sound, transparent and supported by substantial data and references.

3. Blendstock Sulfur Levels & methodology:  The extensive RIA narrative explains the logic of Tier 2 and potential Tier 3 sulfur levels of refinery Blendstocks, and displays technically-sound blendstock levels.

4.  Utility & Capital Costs: Well-referenced information is presented for use as factors in subsequent spreadsheet calculations.  A small amount of documentation as to the use of the data in this worksheet would be useful.

5.0 References

Baker & Obrien, 2011. Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Available online at http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf

Mathpro, 2011. National Association of Clean Air Agencies Report's Refining Economics. Available online at http://www.theicct.org/pubs/ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4293-4295]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57161; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto Regarding FLEX Equity Option Opening
Transactions

January 16, 2008.
    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 April 14, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``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
substantially prepared by CBOE. On December 24, 2007, the Exchange
filed Amendments No. 1 \3\ and 2 \4\ to the proposed rule change. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaced Amendment No. 1 in its entirety.
The purpose of Amendment 2 was to (i) modify the proposed formula
contained in Rule 24A.4 applicable to determining the minimum value
size for FLEX Equity Options in new series to change the minimum
contract component from the originally proposed 100 contracts to 150
contracts, and make this change applicable on a 1\1/2\-year pilot
program basis; (ii) propose changes to the formula applicable to
determining the minimum value size in currently-opened series; (iii)
include corresponding amendments to Rule 24B.4; and (iv) provide
additional information in the Purpose section of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding the minimum value size
for an opening transaction in FLEX Equity Option series on a pilot
program basis. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Office of the

Secretary, CBOE 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, CBOE 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the filing is to modify the minimum value size for
an opening transaction (other than FLEX Quotes responsive to a FLEX
Request for Quotes) in any FLEX Equity Option \5\ series in which there
is no open interest at the time the Request for Quotes is submitted.
Currently, the minimum opening transaction value size in the case of a
FLEX Equity Options series is the lesser of (i) 250 contracts or (ii)
the number of contracts overlying $1 million in the underlying
securities.\6\ The Exchange proposes to reduce the ``250 contracts''
component to ``150 contracts;'' the $1 million underlying value
component will continue to apply unchanged.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FLEX Equity Options are flexible exchange-traded options
contracts which overlie equity securities. FLEX Equity Options
provide investors with the ability to customize basic option
features including size, expiration date, exercise style, and
certain exercise prices.
    \6\ Under this formula, an opening transaction in a FLEX Equity
series in a stock priced at $40 or more would reach the $1 million
limit before it would reach the contract size limit, i.e., 250
contracts times the multiplier (100) times the stock price ($40)
equals $1 million in underlying value. For a FLEX Equity series in a
stock priced at less than $40, the 250 contract size limit applies.
    \7\ Under this proposed formula, an opening transaction in a
FLEX Equity series in a stock priced at approximately $66.67 or more
would reach the $1 million limit before it would reach the contract
size limit, i.e., 150 contracts times the multiplier (100) times the
stock price ($66.67) equals just over $1 million in underlying
value. For a FLEX Equity series in a stock priced at less than
$66.67, the 150 contract size limit would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would become effective on a pilot program basis for a
period of 1\1/2\ years. If the Exchange were to propose an extension,
expansion, or permanent implementation of the program, the Exchange
would submit, along with a filing proposing any necessary amendments to
the program, a pilot program report. The report would include, for the
period during which the program was in effect: (i) Data and analysis on
the open interest and trading volume in FLEX Equity Options for which
series were opened with a minimum opening size of 150 to 249 contracts
and less than $1 million in underlying value; and (ii) analysis on the
types of investors that initiated opening FLEX Equity Options
transactions (i.e., institutional, high net worth, or retail, if any).
The report would be submitted to the Commission at least ninety days
prior to the expiration date of the 1\1/2\ year pilot program.
    The Exchange believes that the reduction of the minimum value size
for opening a series in the manner proposed provides FLEX-participating
members with greater flexibility in structuring the terms of FLEX
Equity Options that best comports with their and their customers'
particular needs. The Exchange notes that the opening size requirement
for FLEX Equity Options was originally put in place to limit
participation in FLEX Equity Options to sophisticated, high net worth
investors rather than retail investors.\8\ Based on the Exchange's
experience to date with such options, it appears that the existing 250
contract component is too large to accommodate the needs of FLEX-
participating members and their institutional and high net worth

customers and thus has become overly restrictive. In particular, the
Exchange has recently received numerous requests from broker-dealers
representing institutional investors that the minimum value size for
opening transactions be reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The existing customer base for FLEX Options includes both
institutional investors and high net worth individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing the reduction of the 250 contract component to 150
contracts, CBOE is cognizant of the desire to continue to provide the
requisite amount of investor protection that the minimum opening size
requirement was originally designed to achieve, on the one hand, and
the need for market participants to have the flexibility to serve their
customers' particular investment needs, on the other hand. As discussed
further below, CBOE is also aware of the over-the-counter (``OTC'')
market in customized options, which can take on contract
characteristics similar to FLEX Options but for which similar opening
size restrictions do not apply. In light of these considerations, CBOE
believes it is appropriate to modify the FLEX Equity Option minimum
opening size requirement in the manner proposed. By reducing the 250
contract component to 150 contracts, the Exchange believes FLEX-
participating members could better serve the needs of investors, while
maintaining a requirement substantial enough to limit participation to
investors who have adequate resources, thereby continuing to provide
the requisite amount of investor protection that the opening size
requirement was originally designed to achieve. Also, limiting the term
of the program to a period of 1\1/2\ years would give the Exchange time
to consider whether it should request that the program should be
extended, expanded, and/or made permanent. If so, CBOE would seek
Commission approval.
    In further support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that the
minimum value size for currently-opened FLEX Equity Option series is
already set at 100 contracts, and the minimum size for FLEX Quotes
entered in response to a FLEX Request for Quotes is set at 25 contracts
(whether in a new series or in a currently-opened series).\9\ If FLEX
Equity Option transactions can occur in increments of 100 or more
contracts in subsequent opening transactions, the Exchange believes it
is reasonable to permit the initial series opening transaction size to
be 150 contracts (or $1 million in underlying value, whichever is
less).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, the minimum value size for a transaction in
any currently-opened FLEX Equity Option series is 100 contracts in
the case of opening transactions and 25 contracts in the case of
closing transactions (or any lesser amount in a closing transaction
that represents the remaining underlying size, whichever is less).
Additionally, the minimum value size for a FLEX Quote entered in
response to a Request for Quotes in FLEX Equity Options is the
lesser of 25 contracts or the remaining underlying size in a closing
transaction. See Exchange Rules 24A.4(a)(4)(iii)-(iv) and
24B.4(a)(5)(iii)-(iv). A ``FLEX Quote'' refers to (i) FLEX bids and
offers entered by Market-Makers and (ii) orders to purchase and
orders to sell FLEX Options entered by Exchange members other than
Market-Makers, in each case in response to a Request for Quotes. See
CBOE Rules 24A.1(h) and 24B.1(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that modifying the minimum opening
transaction value size in this way will further broaden the base of
institutional investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their
trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade
in the OTC market for customized options which, as indicated above, can
take on contract characteristics similar to FLEX Options but for which
similar opening size restrictions do not apply. By reducing the minimum
opening size requirements for FLEX Equity Options, market participants
will have greater flexibility in determining whether to execute their
customized options in an exchange environment or in the OTC market.
CBOE believes market participants benefit from being able to trade
these customized options in an exchange environment in several ways,
including, but not limited to, enhanced efficiency in initiating and
closing out positions; increased market transparency; and heightened
contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of The Options Clearing
Corporation as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options.
    Finally, the Exchange is also proposing to modify the minimum value
size for an opening transaction in a currently-opened FLEX Equity
series (other than FLEX Quotes responsive to a FLEX Request for
Quotes). As discussed above, presently, the minimum transaction value
size for an opening transaction in a currently-opened series is 100
contracts. The Exchange is proposing to modify the minimum size formula
to the lesser of (i) 100 contracts or (ii) the number of contracts
overlying $1 million in the underlying securities. This change would
only impact those FLEX Equity series in which the underlying stock is
trading at $100 or more.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under this proposed formula, a transaction in a currently-
opened FLEX Equity series in a stock priced at $100 or more would
reach the $1 million limit before it would reach the contract size
limit, i.e., 100 contracts times the multiplier (100) times the
stock price ($100) equals $1 million in underlying value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLEX minimum size requirements have generally provided that the
minimum size for subsequent opening transactions in a currently-opened
series is smaller than the minimum size needed to initially open the
series. Therefore, Exchange believes that this change is necessary for
there to be consistency between the minimum size requirements for new
series and currently-opened series when the underlying stock is trading
at $100 or more. For example, a new FLEX Equity series in a stock
trading at $110 could open with an initial transaction size of 91
contracts, i.e., 91 contracts times the multiplier (100) times the
stock price ($110) equals just over $1 million in underlying value.
Once the series is opened, absent the proposed change, any further
opening transactions would require a minimum contract size of 100
contracts. However, if the initial series opening can occur with a 91
contract transaction, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
permit the size of subsequent opening transactions in the series to be
for 91 contracts.
2. Statutory Basis
    By providing FLEX-participating members and their customers greater
flexibility to trade FLEX Equity Options by lowering from 250 to 150
the minimum number of contracts required to open a series, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Act \11\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \12\ in particular in that it should promote just and
equitable principles of trade, serve to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal

Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which CBOE consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-36 and should be
submitted on or before February 14, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1178 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62812-62813]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0509]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Appeals of Science-
Based Decisions Above the Division Level at the Center for Veterinary
Medicine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0566.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Appeals of Science-Based Decisions Above the Division Level at the
Center for Veterinary Medicine--21 CFR Part 10.75 (OMB Control Number
0910-0566)--Extension

    Respondents: Respondents to this collection of information are
applicants that wish to submit a request for review of a scientific
dispute.
    The Center for Veterinary Medicine's Guidance for Industry
79 ``Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions
on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine'' describes
the process by which the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) formally
resolves disputes relating to scientific controversies. A scientific
controversy involves issues concerning a specific product regulated by
CVM related to matters of technical expertise and requires specialized
education, training, or experience to be understood and resolved.
Further, the guidance details information on how the Agency intends to
interpret and apply provisions of the existing regulations regarding
internal Agency review of decisions. In addition, the guidance outlines
the established procedures for persons who are sponsors, applicants, or
manufacturers, for animal drugs or other products regulated by CVM,
that wish to submit a request for review of a scientific dispute. When
a sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer has a scientific disagreement
with a written decision by CVM, they may submit a request for a review
of that decision by following the established Agency channels of
supervision for review.
    In the Federal Register of July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41264), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.75..............................................................               1                3                3               10               30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    This estimated annual reporting burden is based on CVM's experience
over the past 3 years in handling formal appeals for scientific
disputes. The number of respondents multiplied by the number of
responses per respondent equals the total annual responses. The average
burden per response (in hours) is based on discussions with industry
and may vary depending on the complexity of the issue(s) involved and
the duration of the appeal process.

    Dated: October 4, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-26132 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5269-5271]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01516]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88020; File No. SR-PEARL-2020-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

January 23, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 15, 2020, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to make minor, non-substantive corrective
edits and clarifying changes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend several sections of the Fee Schedule
to make minor, non-substantive edits to harmonize terms in the Fee
Schedule with that of the Exchange's rulebook and the rulebooks of the
Exchange's affiliates, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). Currently,
throughout the Fee Schedule, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX, is
referred to as ``MIAX Options'' or ``MIAX Options Exchange.'' The
Exchange now proposes that all references throughout the Fee Schedule
that are to ``MIAX Options'' or ``MIAX Options Exchange'' will be
amended to delete the words ``Options'' or ``Options Exchange'' (where
applicable), such that all references will be to the singular word
``MIAX.'' The proposed amendments would be to references to ``MIAX
Options'' or ``MIAX Options Exchange'' in the following sections of the
Fee Schedule: (i) the text for the definitions of MENI and MIAX in the
Definitions section and the text in the last paragraph of the
Definitions section \3\; (ii) the Routing Fee table in Section (1)(b);
(iii) the text underneath the Member Network Connectivity Testing and
Certification Fee table in Section (4)(c); (iv) the text underneath the
Non-Member Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee table in
Section (4)(d); (v) the text underneath the Monthly Member Network
Connectivity Fee table in Section (5)(a); and (vi) the text underneath
the Monthly Non-Member Network Connectivity Fee table in Section
(5)(b). The purpose of these changes is to harmonize the term ``MIAX''
in the Exchange's Fee Schedule with the MIAX PEARL rulebook,\4\ and to
provide consistency for the term ``MIAX'' across the Fee Schedules and
rulebooks of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In connection with this change, the Exchange also proposes
to delete the word ``the'' before ``MIAX Options'' in the last
paragraph of the Definitions section as a grammatical correction.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85771 (May 3, 2019),
84 FR 20445 (May 9, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-16).
    \5\ See MIAX and MIAX Emerald Fee Schedules, Definitions
section. See also MIAX Rule 100 and MIAX Emerald Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Definitions section of the
Fee Schedule to amend a cross-reference in one of the defined terms.
Currently, the term ``ABBO'' contains a cross-reference to Exchange
Rule 1400(f), which is meant to be a cross-reference to the definition
for an ``Eligible Exchange.'' The correct citation to the definition
for ``Eligible Exchange'' is Exchange Rule 1400(g).\6\ Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to amend the cross-reference in the definition for
``ABBO'' in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule to be to
Exchange Rule 1400(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87693 (December 9,
2019), 84 FR 68264 (December 13, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-48) (which
amended, among other rules, MIAX Rule 1400 citations). The Exchange
notes that the rules contained in MIAX Chapter XIV are incorporated
by reference into MIAX PEARL Chapter XIV. See MIAX PEARL Rulebook,
Chapter XIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section (2)(c) of the Fee
Schedule, Web CRD Fees, to make non-substantives edits to the sentence
in parentheses following the FINRA Disclosure Processing Fee under the
section titled ``GENERAL REGISTRATION FEES.'' Currently, the FINRA
Disclosure Processing Fee includes the following in parentheses ``(Form
U4, Form U5, Form BD & amendments)''. The Exchange now proposes to
delete the ampersand in that sentence and replace it with the word

``and''. Similarly, the last paragraph of Section (2)(c) has a sentence
that describes that the FINRA Disclosure Processing Fee applies to all
registration, transfer, or termination filings with new or amended
disclosure information or that require certification, as well any
amendment to disclosure information. Within that sentence, there is the
following in parentheses ``(Form U4, Form U5, Form BD & Amendments)''.
The Exchange now proposes to delete the ampersand in that sentence and
replace it with the word ``and'' and make lowercase the word
``Amendments''. The purpose of these proposed changes are for clarity
and uniformity with the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliates,
MIAX and MIAX Emerald.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross-reference in last
paragraph of Section (2)(c) of the Fee Schedule. The last paragraph of
Section (2)(c) currently states as follows: ``The Continuing Education
Fee applies to each individual who is required to complete the
Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to
MIAX PEARL Rule 1304.'' Recently, the Exchange reorganized and enhanced
the Exchange's membership, registration and qualification rules, and
consolidated these rules into new Chapter XXXI, Registration,
Qualification and Continuing Education.\7\ Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to amend the cross-reference in the last paragraph of Section
(2)(c) of the Fee Schedule to reflect these changes. The cross-
reference in the last paragraph of Section (2)(c) will now be to
Exchange Rule 3103, Continuing Education Requirements, which contains,
among other things, the requirements for individuals to complete the
Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Program. With the
proposed change, the last paragraph of Section (2)(c) will state as
follows: ``The Continuing Education Fee applies to each individual who
is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing
Education Requirements pursuant to MIAX PEARL Rule 3103.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87941 (January 10,
2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its affiliate, MIAX Emerald, will also make
similar changes to its Fee Schedule as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in, securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed changes make clarifying, non-substantive edits to
the Fee Schedule, and update a cross-reference to the Exchange's
rulebook. The Exchange believes that these proposed changes will
provide greater clarity to Members and the public regarding the
Exchange's Fee Schedule and that it is in the public interest for the
Fee Schedule to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the
potential for confusion.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is not a competitive filing but rather is designed to
remedy minor non-substantive issues and provide added clarity to the
Fee Schedule in order to avoid potential confusion on the part of
market participants. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the
proposal does not address any competitive issues and is intended to
protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2020-02 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-PEARL-2020-02. 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 offices 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-PEARL-2020-02, and should be
submitted on or before February 19, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01516 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2834-2836]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00867]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0342; FRL-9921-66-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania;
Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision--
Particulate Matter Best Available Retrofit Technology Limit for the
Cheswick Power Plant in Allegheny County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This SIP revision addresses an
error in the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for
Boiler Number 1 of the Cheswick Generating Station (Cheswick) in
Allegheny County. EPA is approving the portion of Pennsylvania's SIP
revision addressing the particulate matter (PM) BART requirements as it
is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules for BART.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0342. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in
the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one
can see. Section 169A of the CAA establishes as a national goal the
``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution'' and requires SIPs for
states whose emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas to contain
emission limits, compliance schedules and other measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A regional
haze SIP generally must include, among other measures, source-specific
BART emission limits for each source subject to BART. A detailed
discussion of the requirements of the regional haze program can be
found in our earlier notice proposing action on Pennsylvania's regional
haze SIP. See 77 FR 3984 (January 26, 2012).
    On December 20, 2010, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP to address regional haze

requirements as required by the CAA. Among the measures included in the
SIP submission and approved by EPA for the SIP on July 13, 2012 (77 FR
41279) was a coarse PM (PM10) BART emission limit for
Cheswick of 361 tons per year (tpy). PADEP has determined that this
limit was set in error and submitted a SIP revision on March 25, 2014
to correct the PM10 BART emission limit. On October 30, 2014
(79 FR 64539), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of
the portion of Pennsylvania's March 25, 2014 SIP revision addressing
the PM10 BART requirements as it is in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's rules for BART.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    PADEP explained in its March 25, 2014 SIP revision that the
PM10 BART emission limit of 361 tpy for Boiler No. 1 at
Cheswick included in the December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission
was found to be incorrect during the public comment period for EPA's
proposed approval of the regional haze SIP. The December 20, 2010
regional haze SIP submittal included the 361 tpy PM10 limit
because at the time PADEP was assessing the appropriate BART limits, it
decided to base the PM10 BART limit on the May 4, 2009 BART
review memo for Cheswick which referred to conditions of certain
permits for Cheswick as BART, and the review memo listed Cheswick's
potential to emit at 361 tpy. However, PADEP later discovered the
PM10 potential to emit included in the May 4, 2009 BART
review memo was incorrect and that Cheswick's permits included a
PM10 emission limit of 180 pounds per hour (lbs/hr). The
March 25, 2014 SIP revision replaces the incorrect PM10
emission limit of 361 tpy with the correct BART PM10
emission limit for Boiler No. 1 of 180 lbs/hr, which includes
condensable particulate matter, but excludes sulfuric acid mist
(H2SO4).
    The March 25, 2014 SIP revision submittal included a revised BART
review memo for Cheswick which recommended the PM10 emission
limit of 180 lbs/hr as BART for Cheswick based largely on minimal
visibility impacts to Class I areas from Cheswick and installed
pollution controls at Cheswick in accordance with 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule (the BART Guidelines). The rationale for EPA's proposed action
approving the PM10 BART revision for Cheswick and finding
the SIP revision would not interfere with visibility improvement or any
CAA requirement is explained in detail in the NPR as in accordance with
sections 110, 169A, and 169B of the CAA and with the regional haze
regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and will not be restated here. No adverse
public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving a portion of Pennsylvania's March 25, 2014
revision to its regional haze SIP which revises the PM10
BART emission limitation for Cheswick. EPA will take later, separate
action concerning the remainder of the March 25, 2014 SIP revision
which included revised BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides. This conclusion is based on our review of the March
25, 2014 SIP revision as well as Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP
including technical data and supporting analysis. The PM10
emission rate of 180 lbs/hr (including condensables and excluding
H2SO4) supersedes the previous PM10
BART determination for Cheswick included in the December 20, 2010
regional haze SIP which EPA approved July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41279). EPA
finds Pennsylvania's PM10 BART determination for Cheswick
reasonable and finds the revision will not interfere with visibility
improvements or any other CAA requirements set forth in sections
110(l), 169A, and 169B of the CAA, as well as in our implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule revising a BART limitation for Cheswick does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 23, 2015. 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. This action revising the PM10 BART emission
limitation for Cheswick for Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP 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: December 30, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 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 NN Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry under ``Regional Haze Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable      State submittal
            revision               geographic area         date        EPA approval date  Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan.............  Statewide.........         3/25/14   [01/21/15] [Insert  Revises PM10 Best
                                                                       Federal Register    Available Retrofit
                                                                       citation].          Technology emission
                                                                                limit for Boiler No.
                                                                                1 of the Cheswick
                                                                                Power Plant in
                                                                                Allegheny County.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00867 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P