[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78315-78318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30857]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0002; FRL-9904-53-Region 10]

Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine
Particulate Matter Control Measures; Franklin County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2012, the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to address Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the Idaho portion
(hereafter referred to as ``Franklin County'') of the cross border
Logan, Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area (Logan UT-ID). The EPA is proposing a limited
approval of PM2.5 control measures contained in the December
2012 submittal because incorporation of these measures would strengthen
the Idaho SIP and reduce sources of PM2.5 emissions in
Franklin County that contribute to violations of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area.
Consequently, the EPA is not acting on the entire contents of the
December 2012 SIP submission revision at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0002, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information,
the disclosure of which 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206)
553-0256, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background
II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control
Measures
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), set forth at 40 CFR 50.13, effective December 18, 2006,
include 24-hour standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations (71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). Effective December 14,
2009, the EPA designated the Logan UT-ID area (cross state, partial
county designation) as a nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 2009). The EPA
included a portion of Franklin County, Idaho within the Logan UT-ID
nonattainment area because emissions from sources in Idaho contribute
to violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan,
UT-ID area as a whole.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality 24-Hour
Fine Particulate (PM2.5) Designations, Sections 4.8.2 and
4.10.2 (Dec. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2012, the EPA issued guidance to states for implementation
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (March 2012 Implementation
Guidance).\2\ In this guidance, the EPA recommended that states submit
SIP revisions to meet the nonattainment area planning requirements of
the CAA within three years of the effective date of the nonattainment
area designation. The EPA also recommended in the guidance that states
make submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with
the substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (Provisions
for Implementation of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 40 CFR 51.1000 et seq.). Accordingly, in December 2012, IDEQ
submitted a SIP revision intended to address the nonattainment planning
requirements for the Franklin County portion of the Logan UT-ID
nonattainment area (also referred to as ``Cache Valley'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Implementation Guidance for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 4, 2013, however, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia remanded to the EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule'' which forms the basis of the 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z nonattainment planning requirements in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court
concluded that the EPA had improperly based the implementation rule for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely upon the requirements of part D,
subpart 1 of the CAA, and had failed to address the requirements of
part D, subpart 4. As a result of the Court's decision with respect to
the statutory implementation requirements for PM2.5
nonattainment areas the EPA withdrew its March 2012 Implementation
Guidance because it was based largely on the remanded rule promulgated
to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The EPA is currently
engaged in rulemaking to address the remand from the Court. In the
interim, however, the EPA believes that it may still be appropriate to
take certain actions on SIP submissions from states intended to address
nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Withdrawal of
Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submission presented the state's
evaluation of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the area.
IDEQ explained that the Franklin County portion of the overall Logan
UT-ID nonattainment area is rural and sparsely populated, containing
only 10% of the overall Logan UT-ID nonattainment population base.
Franklin County contains no major point sources of PM2.5 or
PM2.5 precursors, defined by IDEQ for purposes of this SIP
revision as a facility with the potential to emit annual emissions of
100 tons or more. Additionally, IDEQ stated that Franklin County
accounts for roughly one-tenth of the overall mobile source emissions
from cars and trucks and generally small area source contributions in
the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area. Because the majority of emission
sources impacting the nonattainment area are located outside Franklin
County, IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submittal acknowledged that control
measures either already promulgated or required as part of the Utah SIP
are necessary to demonstrate attainment for the entire Logan UT-ID
area.
    As part of its December 2012 submission, IDEQ included a modeled
attainment test conducted by the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). This modeled attainment test
predicted the Logan UT-ID area would attain by the end of 2014 based
solely on control measures adopted in the Utah portion of the area,
with the Idaho controls providing additional reductions. Because the
Idaho submission relies on the Utah control measures in demonstrating
attainment, however, the EPA must also complete a comprehensive review
of Utah's SIP submission for the Logan UT-ID area before the EPA can
act on the entire SIP submission for the Franklin County portion of the
area. Moreover, the EPA's evaluation of the SIP submissions from both
states would need to include the emissions inventory, approach to
PM2.5 precursors, analysis and adoption of reasonably
available control measures and reasonably available control technology
(RACM and RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP) and quantitative
milestones, contingency measures, and the attainment demonstration. The
EPA will need to evaluate these submissions against the statutory
requirements of part D, subpart 4.
    In light of the court's decision in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, and the need to evaluate the IDEQ submission in
conjunction with the SIP submission for the Utah portion of the Logan
UT-ID nonattainment area, the EPA is not at this time making a
determination whether IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submission satisfies all
of the statutory nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, the EPA's proposed action on IDEQ's
December 2012 SIP revision is limited to approving specific control
measures included in the submission that are expected to strengthen the
SIP. These measures independently meet requirements for control
measures in attainment plans and the emissions reductions they achieve
will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
Logan UT-ID area. Despite the limited nature of this proposed approval,
the EPA believes that approval and incorporation of the control
measures in the December 2012 SIP submission strengthen the Idaho SIP
and provide important PM2.5 emission reductions.

II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control
Measures

    IDEQ, in close coordination with UDAQ, completed an emissions
inventory for directly emitted PM2.5 (primary
PM2.5) and the PM2.5 precursors sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia. An analysis of the baseline year
emissions inventory indicated that sources in Franklin County
contribute about one-fifth of the overall area primary PM2.5
emissions during wintertime episodes when the area is most likely to
violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The important source
categories identified for this contribution of primary PM2.5
consist of 70% reintrained dust from winter road sanding, 14%
residential wood burning emissions, and 6% mobile source primary
PM2.5 emissions.

It is important to note that the EPA is not in this action evaluating
whether IDEQ's or UDAQ's evaluation of which PM2.5
precursors should be controlled within Franklin County, or within the
entire Logan UT-ID area, is correct and consistent with the statutory
requirements of part D, subpart 4. Nevertheless, the EPA agrees with
IDEQ's determination that control of direct PM2.5 emissions
in this area is a necessary and appropriate step that will contribute
to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area.
    To reduce the contribution of primary PM2.5 from
reentrained dust on paved roads, IDEQ entered into road sanding
agreements with Franklin County Road and Bridge and the Idaho
Transportation Department as part of the SIP. The Franklin County Road
and Bridge agreement reduces the amount of sand used on paved roads by
substituting a brine solution when appropriate. For those times when
antiskid treatment is required, Franklin County Road and Bridge agreed
to use a 4-to-1 sand to salt ratio instead of the 10-to-1 ratio used in
past years. Similarly, the Idaho Transportation Department agreed to
use straight salt and liquid salt brine throughout Franklin County,
except for occasional extenuating circumstances that warrant additional
anti-skid materials. IDEQ used the EPA's AP-42 road dust emission
estimation methodology in calculating future PM2.5
reductions and found that the road sanding agreements would reduce
primary PM2.5 emissions from 0.47 tons per day in an
uncontrolled scenario to 0.37 tons per day by 2014, for a typical
winter weekday. Although the road sanding agreements are expected to
reduce emissions of PM2.5, they are not directly
enforceable. However, the road sanding agreements are similar to
agreements previously approved by the EPA as voluntary measures in the
Idaho SIP (70 FR 29247), and consistently implemented by the relevant
state, county and municipal governments. Accordingly, the EPA is
proposing to approve the road sanding agreements as voluntary measures
in accordance with existing guidance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State
Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEQ also worked with local jurisdictions in Franklin County to
establish residential woodstove ordinances to control primary
PM2.5 and VOC emissions from non-EPA certified devices
during mandatory burn ban days. IDEQ's Air Quality Index (AQI) program
supports the local jurisdictions by calling mandatory burn bans for
uncertified woodstoves when PM2.5 concentration levels are
at or forecasted to reach 25.4 [mu]g/m\3\. The ordinances also ban open
burning of any kind during burn ban days. Lastly, the ordinances
prohibit the sale or installation of non-EPA certified devices in new
or existing buildings, and prohibit the construction of any building
for which a solid fuel burning device is the sole source of heat.
Because the residential woodstove burn ban program for Franklin County
was newly launched in the 2012-2013 heating season, to estimate the
PM2.5 reductions are difficult and were not included in the
emission reduction modeling runs. Lastly, IDEQ conducted two woodstove
change-out programs in 2006 and 2011 replacing a total of 152
uncertified residential wood combustion devices in Franklin County. In
developing the emissions inventory for Franklin County, IDEQ calculated
an estimated 5.78 tons per year of primary PM2.5 emissions
reductions from these change-out programs. The recently enacted
woodstove ordinances prohibit the sale or installation of uncertified
devices which will help to assure that the 2006, 2011, and any future
change-out programs will continue to provide lasting emissions
reductions benefits over time.

             Table 1--Franklin County PM2.5 Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                    State or local effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Intent PM2.5 Reduction,   July 16, 2012.
 Franklin County Road Department
 to Department of Environmental
 Quality (Voluntary Measure).
Road Sanding Agreement, Idaho       October 25, 2012.
 Transportation Department to
 Idaho Department of Environmental
 Quality (Voluntary Measure).
Ordinance No. 120, City of          August 11, 2012.
 Clifton, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 287, City of Dayton,  August 8, 2012.
 Idaho.
Franklin City Ordinance, Solid      September 12, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012-
 9-12.
Franklin County Ordinance, Solid    June 25, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012-
 6-25.
Memorandum of Understanding, Solid  October 22, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, City of
 Oxford, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 2012-1, City of       June 11, 2012.
 Preston, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 2012-01, City of      August 1, 2012.
 Weston, Idaho.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate into the SIP the
specific control measures submitted by IDEQ on December 14, 2012. These
control measures are listed in Table 1 and full copies are included in
Appendix E of Idaho's SIP revision and in the docket for this proposed
action. If finally approved by the EPA, these specific control measures
will become part of the Idaho SIP for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. As described above, at this time the EPA is not
making a determination that these control measures satisfy RACM or any
other statutory nonattainment area planning requirements under part D,
subpart 4. However, the control measures adopted by IDEQ in the
Franklin County portion of the Logan UT-ID area provide important
PM2.5 reductions that strengthen the existing Idaho SIP. Due
to the cross-state nature of the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area, the
EPA will act on the remainder of Idaho's December 2012 SIP submission
following a complete review of the corresponding Utah SIP submission.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action

merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 the 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 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Adminstrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-30857 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4703-4705]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0036]
RIN 2130-AB90

Track Safety Standards; Continuous Welded Rail (CWR)

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of
FRA's final rule published on August 25, 2009, which revised the Track
Safety Standards. FRA received one petition questioning the definitions
of ``adjusting/de-stressing'' and ``buckling-prone condition'' as they
are used with regard to continuous welded rail (CWR).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on March 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Office
of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Sarah Grimmer Yurasko, Trial
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20950 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to (SAFETEA-LU), FRA published a final rule revising the
Track Safety Standards on August 25, 2009 (74 FR 42988). FRA published
a correcting amendment on October 21, 2009, which added compliance
dates for railroads that had been inadvertently omitted from the final
rule's compliance schedule. On September 25, 2009, FRA received a
petition for reconsideration from the Association of American Railroads
(AAR). This publication announces amendments to the final rule in
response to the concerns expressed by the petitioner.

``Buckling-Prone Condition'' Definition

    In the petition, AAR stated that the definition of ``buckling prone
condition'' included in the final rule at Sec.  213.119(l) was not
proposed by FRA in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As such, the
petitioner did not have an opportunity until the review of the final
rule to address the definition. The final rule provides that a
``buckling-prone condition'' exists ``when the actual rail temperature
is above the actual rail neutral temperature. This varies given the
geographical composition of the track.'' Section 213.119(g)(2)(ii)
requires remedial action to be taken whenever a buckling prone
condition exists. AAR argues that, literally interpreted, the final
rule requires remedial action whenever the rail neutral temperature is
exceeded. AAR states that this is not what FRA intended, as the neutral
temperature is supposed to be between the maximum and minimum
temperatures the rail is subject to and thus the neutral temperature
will commonly be exceeded. AAR suggested that ``buckling-prone
condition'' be defined as follows:

    Buckling-prone condition means when track conditions may be
insufficient to restrain the track laterally at the rail
temperatures actually experienced at that location.

    FRA reviewed the definition of ``buckling-prone condition'' and
consulted with the Volpe Center to more narrowly define what is
intended by this term. In the railroad industry, ``track buckling''
refers to the sudden lateral movement of the track due to thermally-
generated longitudinal rail forces. As the temperature rises above the
actual rail neutral temperature, longitudinal expansion in rail can
occur once a critical rail temperature is reached that can cause
lateral misalignment of the track. Therefore, FRA concluded that CWR
cannot always be considered in a ``buckling-prone condition'' if the
rail temperature is only above the rail neutral temperature, without
reaching the critical temperature that can cause track misalignment. As
a result, FRA has determined that the definition in the final rule
could be misleading by stating ``when the actual rail temperature is
above the actual rail neutral temperature.''
    After consideration, FRA has determined that ``buckling-prone
condition'' means a condition that can result in the track being
laterally displaced due to high compressive forces caused by critical
rail temperature combined with insufficient track strength and/or train
dynamics.

``Adjusting/De-Stressing'' Definition

    The petition also noted an error in the definition of ``adjusting/
de-stressing.'' The final rule defines ``adjusting/de-stressing'' as a
``procedure by which a rail's temperature is re-adjusted to the desired
value. It typically consists of cutting the rail and removing rail
anchoring devices, which provides for the necessary expansion and
contraction, and then re-assembling the track.'' AAR points out that it
is not the temperature of the rail that is adjusted, but rather the
rail neutral temperature that is adjusted. AAR suggested that FRA
replace ``a rail's temperature'' with ``the rail neutral temperature''
in the definition for ``adjusting/de-stressing'' in Sec.  213.119(l).
FRA has also noted this unintended omission in the definition and is
amending the first sentence of the definition of ``adjusting/de-
stressing'' to mean ``a procedure by which a rail's neutral temperature
is re-adjusted to the desired value.''

Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034,
Feb. 26, 1979). The original final rule was determined to be non-
significant. Furthermore, the amendments contained in this action are
not considered significant because they generally clarify requirements
currently contained in the final rule or allow for greater flexibility
in complying with the rule. These amendments, additions, and
clarifications will have a minimal net effect on FRA's original
analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272 require a review of proposed and final rules to assess
their impact on small entities. FRA certifies that this action is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or Executive
Order 13272. Because the amendments contained in this document
generally clarify requirements currently contained in the final rule or
allow for greater flexibility in complying with the rule, FRA has
concluded that there are no substantial economic impacts on small units
of government, businesses, or other organizations resulting from this
action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not change the information collection requirements
contained in the original final rule.

D. Federalism Implications

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, Aug. 10, 1999). As discussed earlier in the preamble, these
amendments to the final rule clarify definitions for compliance with
the final rule governing CWR.
    Executive Order 13132 requires FRA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue
a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local government officials early in the process of developing
the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism implications and
preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the regulation.
    FRA has determined that this action would not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, nor on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. In addition,
FRA has determined that this action would not impose any direct
compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.
    However, this final rule has preemptive effect. Section 20106
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law,
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters)
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order
qualifies under the local safety or security exception to Section
20106. The intent of Section 20106 is to promote national uniformity in
railroad safety and security standards. 49 U.S.C. 20106(a)(1). Thus,
subject to a limited exception for essentially local safety or security
hazards, this final rule establishes a uniform Federal safety standard
that must be met, and State requirements covering the same subject
matter would be displaced, whether those State requirements are in the
form of a State law, including common law, regulation, or order. Part
213 establishes Federal standards of care that preempt State standards
of care, but this part does not preempt an action under State law
seeking damages for personal injury, death, or property damage alleging
that a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care
established by this part, including a plan or program required by this
part. Provisions of a plan or program that exceed the requirements of
this part are not included in the Federal standard of care.
    In sum, FRA has analyzed this action in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this action has no federalism
implications, other than the preemption of State laws covering the
subject matter of this final rule, which occurs by operation of law
under Section 20106 whenever FRA issues a rule or order. Accordingly,
FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism summary impact
statement for this action is not required.

E. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this action in accordance with its ``Procedures
for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR
28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that
this action is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In
accordance with sections 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency
has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with
respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this action
is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment.

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) currently $141,300,000 in any 1 year, and
before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This action would not result in the
expenditure, in the aggregate, of $141,300,000 or more in any one year,
and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

G. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355, May 22,

2001. Under the Executive Order, a ``significant energy action'' is
defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:
(1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2)
that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has
evaluated this action in accordance with Executive Order 13211. FRA has
determined that this action is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA
has determined that this regulatory action is not a ``significant
energy action'' within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.

H. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, 49 CFR part 213 is amended by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49(m).

0
2. In Sec.  213.119(l), revise the definitions for ``adjusting/de-
stressing'' and ``buckling-prone condition'' to read as follows:

Sec.  213.119  Continuous welded rail (CWR); plan contents.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    Adjusting/de-stressing means a procedure by which a rail's neutral
temperature is re-adjusted to the desired value. It typically consists
of cutting the rail and removing rail anchoring devices, which provides
for the necessary expansion and contraction, and then re-assembling the
track.
* * * * *
    Buckling-prone condition means a track condition that can result in
the track being laterally displaced due to high compression forces
caused by critical rail temperature combined with insufficient track
strength and/or train dynamics.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-1873 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14968-14970]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0591]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation that governs the
operation of the CSX Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Anacostia
River, mile 3.4, at Washington, DC. The change will alter the eight
hour advance notice requirement for a bridge opening to a 48 hour
advance notice requirement for a bridge opening. The operating
regulation change gives more notice for trains and vessels to adjust
their schedules accordingly to ensure safe and efficient transits
across and under the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective April 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0591 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0591 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lindsey Middleton, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-
6629, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 23, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River,
Washington, DC in the Federal Register (76 FR 163). We did not receive
public comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    The CSX Railroad Company has requested a change in the operation
regulation for the CSX Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge, across the
Anacostia River, mile 3.4, at Washington, DC. The new 48 hour advance
notice requirement replaces the current eight hour advance notice
requirement for a bridge opening. This rail-line is used for regular
passenger service and train transits across this bridge on an average
of 21 times a day. As a result, it is necessary that ample time be
given to maintain an accurate schedule for trains and vessels for safe
and efficient travel across and under the bridge.
    The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR
117.253(b)(iv). The regulation was established in August 2004 and
allows the bridge to be operated from a remote location, the Benning
Yard office. The draw of the bridge shall open on signal under the
following circumstances; at all times for public vessels of the United
States, state and local government vessels, commercial vessels, and any
vessel in an emergency involving danger to life or property; from May
15 through September 30, between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m., and between 1 p.m.
and 6 p.m.; and from May 15 through September 30, between 6 p.m. and 7
p.m. if notice is given before 6 p.m. on the day for which the opening
is requested. At all other times, the bridge will open on signal if at
least eight hours of notice is given.
    The vertical clearance of the bridge is 5 feet at Mean High Water
(MHW) in the closed position and 29 feet MHW in the open position.
There are on average, 21 train transits across this bridge everyday and
there have been two bridge openings in the past two years for vessels
taller than five feet.
    Concurrent with the publication of the NPRM, a test deviation
[USCG-2011-0591] was issued to allow the CSX Railroad Bridge to test
the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The test
deviation allowed the bridge to open if at least 48 hours of notice is
given, replacing the eight hour notice requirement. The test deviation
continues to run until February 21, 2012.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed bridge tender logs from before the
test deviation and during the first 120 days of the entire 180 day test
deviation. Before the deviation, the bridge had two bridge openings in
the last two years for vessels over five feet tall. During the first
120 days of the 180 day test deviation there were no requests for a
bridge opening.
    The Coast Guard also reviewed the train logs before and during the
first 120 day period of the entire 180 day test deviation. In both
cases there was on average 21 train transits across this bridge daily.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received on the proposed rule or the test
deviation and no changes were made to the proposed rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The rule change is expected to have only a minimal impact on
maritime traffic transiting under the bridge. The bridge will maintain
its current operating regulation except that where there is currently
an eight hour advance notice requirement for a bridge opening there
will be a 48 hour advance notice requirement. Mariners can plan their
trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge opening advance notice
requirement to minimize delay.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit under the bridge between October 1 and May 14 at all times and
those needing to transit between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. and
from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. between May 15 and September 30.
    This action will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons: The rule adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of waterway navigation by
requiring vessels that are not essential public vessels, vessels with
dangerous emergencies, or vessels transiting under the bridge at
specified excluded times to give 48 hours of notice when requesting a
bridge opening. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge in the
closed position may do so at any time.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM (SNPRM) we offered
to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

     Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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.  117.253, revise paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.253  Anacostia River.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) At all other times, if at least 48 hours of notice is given to
the controller at the Benning Yard Office.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2012-5969 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                           Statement of Phil Lorang
                          Air Quality Policy Division
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Public Hearing on the Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans

                               January 17, 2012
                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                          Research Triangle Park, NC

Good morning and thank you for attending this public hearing. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding this hearing to take comment on the proposed rule that revises the Regional Haze Rule to allow the trading program in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Cross-State Rule) as an alternative program to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). Having just said the words "Cross-State Air Pollution Rule" I need to point out that in this rulemaking those words and "Transport Rule" are being used to mean the same thing.

My name is Phil Lorang and I am the Senior Policy Advisor in the Air Quality Policy Division of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  I will be chairing today's hearing.  Joining me on the panel is Rhea Jones, Group Leader of the Geographic Strategies Group of the Air Quality Policy Division.

We are here today to listen to your comments on EPA's proposed rule that would approve the trading programs in the Cross-State Rule as an alternative to BART for electric generating units that are subject to the requirements of the Cross-State Rule. This notice also proposes a limited disapproval of regional haze State Implementation Plans for several states that, in accordance with EPA policy, relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR as an alternative to BART for electric generating units included in the CAIR trading program. Since CAIR has now been ruled illegal by the DC Circuit Court and remanded to EPA, those state implementation plans cannot be approved. As a remedy to these limited disapprovals, we also proposed Federal Implementation Plans for each state that relied on CAIR.  The proposed Federal Implementation Plans, when finalized, will immediately substitute the Cross-State trading programs for CAIR in these states' implementation plans.  These states would not have to take further action on their regional haze plans until 2018 (unless the states choose to revise their SIPs accordingly and resubmit them to replace the FIP). We encourage states at any time to make these revisions.

Today we will be accepting oral comments on all aspects of our proposal. We will prepare a written transcript of the hearing which will be included in the official record for this rule. We will consider all of your comments as we move forward to complete a final rule. We are accepting written comments for the proposed rule until at least February 16, 2012 and are considering a joint request by several parties to extend this deadline.  There is a handout available in the registration area with detailed information for submitting written comments by mail, fax, or electronically.

As you may be aware, since the proposed rule was signed and published in the Federal Register the Circuit Court has stayed the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and instructed EPA to continue to administer the Clear Air Interstate Rule during the stay. I have no comment from EPA to share with you regarding this development today, but you are welcome to comment on it in your remarks today and in your written comments.

Now, let me describe the procedures for today's hearing.

I will call the scheduled speakers the microphone individually. When it is your turn to speak, please state and spell your name and your affiliation before you begin your testimony.

After you finish your testimony, members of the panel may ask clarifying questions.  If, in addition to the transcript of your testimony, you would also like us to put the full text of your written comments into the docket, please be sure to give a copy of any written comments to our staff at the registration table.

Today's hearing is scheduled from 10 a.m. and will continue until 3 p.m., or until the last registered speaker has provided testimony. If we have not heard from the last speaker by 12:30 p.m., the hearing will go on recess during the scheduled lunch break from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. and reconvene promptly at 1 p.m.  The Café here is open to the public as is the lobby and library one floor above this one, but please do not go into any office areas. We intend to stay until everyone has an opportunity to comment.  If you would like to testify but have not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the registration table.

Thank you all again for participating today.  Let's get started.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5011-5012]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01807]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71387; File No. SR-ISE-2014-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

January 24, 2014.
    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 January 16, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to specify the
frequency with which the Exchange may change the Options Regulatory
Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to specify the
frequency with which the Exchange may change the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'').
    The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each member for all options
transactions in both Standard Options and Mini Options executed or
cleared by the member that are cleared by The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e., transactions that
clear in the customer account of the member's clearing firm at OCC,
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is
collected indirectly from Members through their clearing firms by OCC
on behalf of the Exchange. The dues and fees paid by Members go into
the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help
pay the costs of regulation.
    In response to feedback from Members requesting greater certainty
as to when ORF changes may occur, the Exchange proposes to specify in
the Schedule of Fees that the Exchange may only increase or decrease
the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the
first business day of February or August.\3\ In addition to submitting
a proposed rule change to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') as required by the Act to increase or decrease the
ORF, the Exchange will notify members via circular of any anticipated
change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing
guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would
make it easier for Members to ensure their systems are configured to
properly account for the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's
total regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities, and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to limit changes to
the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is
reasonable because it will give Members certainty on the timing of
changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF
charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and
provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee. The
Exchange notes that the proposed changes are consistent with recent fee
changes made by NYSE Arca (``Arca'') and NYSE Amex Options (``Amex''),
and will make it easier for members to ensure that their systems are
configured to properly account for the ORF.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70500 (September
25, 2013), 78 FR 60361 (October 1, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-91);
70499 (September 25, 2013), 78 FR 60362 (October 1, 2013) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-76); [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

The proposed change is not intended to address a competitive issue but
rather to provide Members with better notice of any change that the
Exchange may make to the ORF, which will make it easier for Members to
ensure that their systems are configured to properly account for the
ORF. Furthermore, as explained above, the proposed changes are
substantially similar in all material respects to fee changes made by
Arca and Amex.\7\ For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed change will impair the ability of Members, or competing
order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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 \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\9\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-ISE-2014-03 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-ISE-2014-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2014-03, and should be
submitted on or before February 20, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01807 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10766-10767]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Generic
Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service
Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection.
The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
December 15, 2017.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0746.
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this generic
information collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of a generic information collection.
    Background: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    Respondents: Approximately 11,000 Individuals and Households,
Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: Once per request.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,833 hours.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 2, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-04921 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:	Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:	RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date:	11/01/2011 04:55 PM
Subject:	MACT Floor Appendices B-F for OMB

 Cortney,

 Attached are the spreadsheets that you requested. We are still doing a final review, and a few limits are different than those in the package that you currently have. I will be sending you a revised package first thing tomorrow that will be consistent with the calculations shown in these spreadsheets.

 Below is the name of each appendix as it is referred to in the memo, to help everyone navigate the files. The ordering is similar to what we used in the March 2011 final rule. Also, please note that these are not formatted for printing at this point...and they are huge.

    Appendix A: Hg, HCl, and TSM Variability as a Function of Fuel Variability (not included-under development)
    Appendix B: Ranked Emission Data for MACT Floor Analysis
    Appendix C: Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) Calculations for Existing Sources
    Appendix D: Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for Existing Sources
    Appendix E: UPL Calculations for New Sources
    Appendix F: Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for New Sources

 Please let me know if you have any questions! The MACT floor memo will
 come later this evening or tomorrow morning.

 Thanks!

 Brian(See attached file: Appendix F - Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for New Sources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix B - Ranked Emission Data for MACT Floor Analysis.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix C - Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) Calculations for Existing Sources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix D - Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for Existing ources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix E - UPL Calculations for New Sources.xlsx)


[Federal Register: February 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5930-5931]
[DOCID:fr03fe09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL03-141-006; EL03-168-006; EL03-171-005; EL03-177-006;
EL03-178-005; EL03-139-008; EL03-140-005; EL03-162-004; EL03-165-010;
EL03-169-007; EL03-172-005; EL03-175-005; EL03-200-009]

Bonneville Power Administration; Public Service Company of New
Mexico; Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District;Tucson Electric Power Company; Western Area Power
Administration; Arizona Public Service Company; Automated Power
Exchange, Inc.; Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Portland General
Electric Company; Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; San Diego Gas & Electric
Company; Southern California Edison Company; Public Service Company of
New Mexico; Notice of Filing

January 27, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 23, 2009, Bonneville Power
Administration, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tucson Electric
Power Company, Western Area Power Administration, Arizona Public
Service Company, Automated Power Exchange, Inc., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, Portland General Electric Company, Puget Sound
Energy, Inc., San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California
Edison Company, and Public Service Company of New Mexico, submitted a
compliance filing in response to the Commission's December 22, 2008
Order, 125 FERC ] 61,345.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically

should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2214 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32638]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-385-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

June 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 21, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251,
filed in Docket No. CP07-385-000, an application pursuant to sections
157.205, 157.208, and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to construct and operate a new
receipt point to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana, under Transco's blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-426-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to the public for inspection.
    Transco proposes to construct and operate a new receipt point on
Transco's 30-inch diameter Southwest Louisiana (SWLA) lateral to
receive revaporized natural gas from the Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. import
terminal by way of the Cheniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company's
(Cheniere) pipeline. The tap on Transco's SWLA lateral would be located
within the yard of Transco's existing Compressor Station No. 44 in
Cameron Meadows, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Transco states that the
interconnection with Cheniere would be located adjacent to Compressor
Station No. 44. Transco also states that the new receipt point would
provide Transco with the ability to receive up to 1 Bcf of revaporized
LNG per day from the Cheniere Sabine Pass pipeline into Transco's SWLA
lateral. Transco estimates that it would cost $1,600,000 to construct
the proposed receipt point facilities. Transco further states that
Cheniere would reimburse Transco for all costs associated with
construction of the proposed facilities.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bill
Hammons, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251, or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for

TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec.  157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary. 2
 [FR Doc. E7-11352 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18798-18800]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08063]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80475; File No. SR-BX-2017-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018

April 17, 2017.
    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 April 11, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Rule 7018 to limit the availability of credits provided for removing
non-displayed liquidity.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 proposed rule change is to limit the credits
provided for removing liquidity on BX under Rule 7018(a).\3\ The
Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it pays rebates
to members that take liquidity and charges fees to members that provide
liquidity. Under Rule 7018(a), the Exchange assesses fees for adding
liquidity, and provides credits for removing liquidity, applied to the
use of the Order \4\ execution and routing services of the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities System by members for all securities priced at $1 or more
per share that it trades. Currently, the Exchange will provide a credit
under Rule 7018(a) to a member that removes liquidity when its Order is
priced-improved by the System. Specifically, an Order (excluding Orders
with Midpoint pegging \5\ and excluding Orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an Order with Midpoint pegging) that
accesses liquidity may receive a credit of $0.0006, $0.0015 or $0.0016
per share executed. Such Orders include Orders that receive price
improvement, other than those that execute against an Order with
Midpoint pegging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed rule change on
April 3, 2017 (SR-BX-2017-019). On April 11, 2017, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
    \4\ As defined by Rule 4702(a).
    \5\ Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows an Order to have
its price automatically set with reference to the NBBO. Midpoint
pegging means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the
Inside Bid and the Inside Offer (the ``Midpoint''). An Order with
Midpoint Pegging is not displayed. See Rule 4703(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange excludes liquidity removing Orders that execute
against resting Orders with Midpoint pegging from receiving a credit
because the member received the benefit of receiving price improvement
from executing against an Order that is priced better than the NBBO.
Moreover, the member receiving the price improvement did not undertake
any additional risk to receive the benefit, but was rather a
beneficiary of the midpoint liquidity. For similar reasons, the
Exchange is proposing to expand the applicability of the zero credit
tier to include a liquidity removing Order that is price improved by
other resting orders with Non-display prices. Thus, in addition to
Orders with Midpoint Pegging, other Orders that may have a non-display
price are: Price to Comply Orders,\6\ Non-Displayed Orders,\7\ Post-
Only Orders,\8\ and Orders with a Reserve Size \9\ attribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 4702(b)(1).
    \7\ See Rule 4702(b)(3).
    \8\ See Rule 4702(b)(4).
    \9\ See Rule 4703(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, if the NBBO is $10 x $10.02, with Market A showing a
bid of 100 shares at $10, Market B showing an offer of 100 shares at
$10.02 and the Exchange displaying a best bid of $9.99 and offer of
$10.03, a member that enters an Order with a Non-display attribute to
buy 100 shares at $10.01 would not have a marketable Order and would
post to the Exchange book as a Non-displayed Order at $10.01. If a
second member enters an Order to sell 100 shares at $10, the Order
would execute against the Non-displayed Order to buy at $10.01 resting
on the Exchange Book. Such an execution would represent price
improvement to the second member without taking on any additional risk
or market-improving behavior. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that it is necessary also to pay a rebate to encourage the
submission of such Orders. Rather, the execution of such Orders will be
free of charge.
    Last, the Exchange is proposing to make conforming changes to two
credits under Rule 7018(a) that currently exclude orders that receive
price improvement and execute against an order with Midpoint pegging
from the eligibility criteria of the credit. Specifically, under the
$0.0016 and $0.0015 per executed share credits of Rule 7018(a) the
Exchange is proposing to replace references to orders that receive
price improvement and execute against an order with Midpoint pegging to
make it clear that orders with a Non-Displayed price are excluded from
the rule. Thus, the exclusion under these two credits will continue to
remain consistent with the proposed amended zero credit tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that offering Orders that remove liquidity
and receive price improvement at no cost is reasonable because the
execution of such Orders is free of charge. Generally, the Exchange
offers reduced transaction fees and credits in return for market-
improving behavior. The Exchange determined to not provide a credit to
members for Orders that remove liquidity when the Order receives price
improvement by executing against a Mid-point Order, since the member
removing liquidity is benefitting from the price improvement. Likewise,
the Exchange is expanding the existing credit tier to include all
Orders with a Non-Displayed price that provide price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that offering Orders that remove liquidity
and receive price improvement at no cost is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because
such Orders invariably receive price improvement of at least $0.005 per
share, and therefore do not need an additional rebate of $0.0006 to
$0.0016 to encourage their submission to the Exchange. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the change is not unfairly discriminatory
because the price improvement provided to these Orders provides a
rational basis for treating them differently from other Orders that
access liquidity at the Exchange.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their Order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any

burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and
credits available to members for execution of securities in securities
of all three Tapes do not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange
venues. The proposed expansion of the zero credit tier is not a burden
on competition because the Exchange has limited resources to apply as
credits and such resources must be applied in a manner that the
Exchange believes will best improve market quality thereon. The
Exchange believes that providing credits to members that are already
receiving price improvement is not the most efficient allocation of
such limited resources, since such Orders do not need to be
incentivized. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that offering
such executions at no cost will not place a burden on competition, but
rather will allow the Exchange to apply its limited resources to other
areas wherein it can promote market-improving behavior by its
participants. Thus, the proposed changes have the potential to make the
Exchange a more attractive trading venue, and consequently may promote
competition among markets. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing Order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-BX-2017-020 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-BX-2017-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-BX-2017-020 and should be
submitted on or before May 12, 2017.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08063 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P