DATE:	July 24, 2015

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category Final Rule

FROM:	Mark Bahner, RTI International

TO:		Rochelle Boyd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA)

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the technical approach and rationale used to develop certain modifications to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Aluminum Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR).
Capture Efficiency Assumption for Uncontrolled Furnaces
Test data related to the capture efficiency for uncontrolled furnaces were analyzed. Two tests were available. Both were conducted at Southwire Corporation in Hawesville, KY. Testing was performed for PM, HCl and PCDD/PCDF from April 30  -  May 02, 2007 at Furnace #5 in Mill 3, and reported on June 26, 2007. The test length was approximately 8 hours, which corresponds to the batch length for Melter/Holder 5. Testing was performed for PM, HCl and PCDD/PCDF from July 17  -  19, 2007 at a Group 1 furnace located in Rod Mill 1 and reported on September 5, 2007. The test length was approximately 3 hours, which corresponds to the Melter 1 batch length[1]. These tests were performed on a furnace stack and also on a temporary canopy hood, which was installed for the test, to capture emissions not directed through the furnace stack.
The results of the two tests are summarized in Table 1. From Table 1, for all pollutants measured via the furnace stack, it can be seen that the mean capture efficiency for the furnace stack was 71 percent, and the median capture efficiency was 78 percent. The EPA has considered various potential furnace stack capture efficiency assumptions and resultant stack test estimation factors for uncontrolled furnaces in light of the available data. For example, if the furnace capture efficiency of an uncontrolled furnace is assumed to be 50 percent, the furnace test results would need to be multiplied by a factor of 2 to calculate total emissions, and if the furnace capture efficiency was assumed to be 66.67 percent (approximately 67 percent), the furnace test results would need to be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to calculate total emissions. Choosing a value of 80 percent, close to the median capture efficiency of 78 percent and the average capture efficiency for the HAP with the highest capture efficiency, would mean that test results would need to be multiplied by a factor of 1.25. The EPA has chosen 80 percent as providing the best estimate of the capture efficiency of uncontrolled furnaces for the pollutants being measured, based on the limited data.
Additional tables related to this analysis are included in Appendix A to this memorandum. The tables can be summarized as follows:
      Table A1: This table presents data from the June 26, 2007 report. The data included pollutant emissions in pounds per hour and test sampling time. These are converted into total mass measured, so that the total emissions from the furnace stack can be compared to the total emissions in the canopy hood stack. For example, the during Run 3, hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions in the furnace stack were 5.31 pounds (lb), and 0.84 lb in the canopy hood, for a total of 6.15 lb.
      Table A2: This table presents data from the June 26, 2007 report. The data are exclusively in pounds and the table includes a calculation of the percentage of pollutants emitted through the canopy hood stack versus the total mass of pollutants emitted through both the canopy hood stack and the furnace stack. For example, the 3-run average fraction for HCl in the canopy hood is 0.19, meaning that 19 percent of the HCl passes through the canopy hood.
      Table A3: This table presents data from the September 5, 2007 report. The data included pollutant emissions in pounds per hour and test sampling time. These are converted into total mass measured, so that the total emissions from the furnace stack can be compared to the total emissions in the canopy hood stack. For example, the during Run 3, hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions in the furnace stack were 2.18 pounds (lb), and 0.84 lb in the canopy hood, for a total of 3.02 lb.
       Table A4: This table presents data from the September 5, 2007 report. The data are exclusively in pounds and the table includes a calculation of the percentage of pollutants emitted through the canopy hood stack versus the total mass of pollutants emitted through both the canopy hood stack and the furnace stack. For example, the 3-run average fraction for HCl in the canopy hood is 0.23, meaning that 23 percent of the HCl passes through the canopy hood.

Costs for Lowering the Dioxin/Furan (D/F) Emissions Limit for Group 1 Furnaces
We performed an analysis to evaluate the option of lowering the D/F emissions limit from 15 to 10 ug TEQ/Mg for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge at all facilities. Based on testing reported in information collection request responses,[2] and supplemental information received from facilities after the 2012 Proposal,[3] there are twelve Group 1 furnaces with emissions above 10 ug/Mg, as shown in Table 2. Eleven of the twelve furnaces are presently controlled with fabric filters, and it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that activated carbon injection would be added to increase the level of control of D/F at these furnaces. One furnace is presently uncontrolled and it is assumed that a direct lime injection fabric filter would be added. In both cases, it was assumed that D/F emissions would be reduced by 85%. The total capital cost for adding activated carbon injection on each of the eleven furnaces already equipped with a fabric filter is calculated to be $170,578, and the total annualized cost for each furnace is estimated to be $112,188. For the one furnace without a fabric filter, the capital cost of adding a direct injection fabric filter is calculated to be $3,174,419 and the total annualized cost is estimated to be $926,856. These costs are based on costs for similar controls estimated for the Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) rule.[4] Therefore, the total annualized cost for the additional controls on all twelve furnaces is estimated to be approximately $2,160,000 (see Table 3). The total annual D/F emission reductions if all furnaces above 10 ug/Mg reduced emissions by 85% would be 2.826 grams TEQ. Therefore, the calculated cost effectiveness is approximately $765,000 per gram TEQ of D/F (see Table 4).
Compliance with Emission Limits during Startup/Shutdown

The EPA is promulgating standards for startup and shutdown for all secondary aluminum process units. The subpart RRR standards will apply at all times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Because the scrap processed at secondary aluminum production facilities is the source of emissions, emissions during startup and shutdown are expected to be no higher and probably much lower than emissions during normal operations since no scrap would be processed.

For production processes in the secondary aluminum production source category where the standards are expressed in units of pounds per ton of feed or similar units (i.e. thermal chip dyers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers using reactive flux and group 1 furnaces), the form of the standard would raise implementation issues if facilities were simply required to demonstrate compliance in the exact same way as they do during normal operations because the equipment is not receiving feed material during startup and shutdown periods. For example, the startup procedure for a furnace consists of gradually heating the furnace to normal operating temperature, without any addition of feed material. Since the feed rate is zero, the emission rate per ton of feed would be calculated to be infinite.

One possibility would be to have concentration-based limits. However, these are probably not appropriate for the secondary aluminum industry, because hooding draws in large amounts of ambient air in order to increase hooding capture. Therefore, it is expected that emissions during startup and shutdown could be measured and determined under the applicable test method in pounds per hour (lb/hr). To demonstrate compliance during the startup and shutdown periods, for emissions standards that are in units of lbs per ton, the emissions in units of pounds per hour would be divided by the feed rate in tons per hour (ton/hr) from the most recent or current performance test and compared to the emission limit for the affected source. For example, the PM limit for a new or existing group 1 furnace is 0.4 lb/ton. If, during a startup or shutdown, the emission rate determined under the applicable test method is 2 lb/hr, and the furnace charge rate during the most recent performance test was 10 tons per hour, the calculated emission rate for that test during a period of startup or shutdown would be 0.2 lb/ton of feed (2 lb/hr of PM divided by 10 tons per hour of feed). This would be in compliance with the PM standard of 0.4 lb/ton of feed. If no performance test results were available, the furnace capacity (tons per hour of feed) could be used. Another possibility would be to demonstrate compliance by keeping records that show that during startup and shutdown no feed/charge or flux was added, and that only clean fuel was used or no fuel was used.

Representativeness for Nine-Company HAP Metals and HAP Organics Testing
The EPA used a nine-company ICR to gather testing data that would correlate emissions of THC surrogate to speciated organic HAPs and emissions of PM surrogate to speciated metal HAPs. Testing was limited to nine companies for efficiency and to avoid undue burden to the industry. The nine companies were chosen primarily because they were large companies operating many facilities, and because these companies are known to operate major source facilities that have thermal chip dryers or scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns. Thermal chip dryers and scrap dryer/delacquering decoating kilns are the only types of equipment that have THC limits. Testing for these two pieces of equipment were limiting, in that few companies in the secondary aluminum source category currently operate those pieces of equipment. Therefore, the sampling of the pieces of equipment was quite representative, because the sampling represented a large fraction of the equipment operated by the industry. The sampling for HAP metals in fabric filter dust represented a much smaller fraction of the industry (less than 10 percent of all equipment). However, there were a total of 55 samples analyzed for the full suite of HAP metals (including arsenic, cadmium, total chromium and hexavalent chromium, manganese, mercury, nickel, etc.). Because 55 samples were taken from many facilities owned by nine companies, these results are believed to be representative of metal concentrations in fabric filter dust within the secondary aluminum industry and are suitable for use in developing speciated metal HAP emissions estimates from PM emissions for metal HAP that are mainly, or entirely, in particulate form (such as Pb, Ni, Cr, Mn, and Cd). More information regarding the data collected and the methodology to calculate emissions is available in the memorandum, " Development of the RTR Supplemental Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category," which is available in the docket for this action.[3]
References
 EPA docket item # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0204. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0204.
 Letter, Peter Tsirigotis (U.S. EPA) to Russell Mayfield (Mayfield Salvage Company) et al., "Requirement to provide information according to 42 U.S.C 7414," February 7, 2011. This was the cover letter for the all-company data collection ICR.
 Memorandum, Mark Bahner (RTI, International) to Rochelle Boyd (U.S. EPA), "Development of the RTR Supplemental Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category" November 12, 2014. EPA docket item # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0239. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0239. This memorandum also has a table that correlates RTI facility ID numbers with facility names and locations.
 Memorandum, Thomas Holloway (RTI, International) to Jeff Telander (U.S. EPA), "Methodology and Assumptions Used to Estimate the Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices," November 6, 2014.

                                List of Tables

Table 1. Southwire Test Results Summary	6
Table 2. Group 1 Furnaces with Reported Emissions Greater than 10 ug TEQ/Mg Feed	6
Table 3. Group 1 Furnace D/F Reduction Options	7
Table 4. Cost-effectiveness Calculation for D/F Reduction Options	7

Table A1.  Southwire Testing Reported June 26, 2007: Complete Test Results	9
Table A2.  Southwire Testing Reported on June 26, 2007: Results in Pounds	10
Table A3.  Southwire Testing Reported September 5, 2007: Complete Test Results	11
Table A4.  Southwire Testing Reported on September 5, 2007: Results in Pounds	12

Table 1. Southwire Test Results Summary
Test Report Date
                                 Pollutant[*]
                  Three-run Average
Fraction in Furnace Stack
                Three-run Average
Fraction in Canopy Hood Stack
June 26, 2007
                                      PM
                                     0.78
                                     0.22
June 26, 2007
                                      HCl
                                     0.81
                                     0.19
June 26, 2007
                                      D/F
                                     0.97
                                     0.03
Sept. 5, 2007
                                      PM
                                     0.49
                                     0.51
Sept. 5, 2007
                                      HCl
                                     0.77
                                     0.23
Sept. 5, 2007
                                      D/F
                                     0.42
                                     0.58
Mean for all
                                      All
                                     0.71
                                     0.29
Median for all
                                      All
                                     0.78
                                     0.22
   *PM = Particulate Matter; HCl = Hydrogen chloride gas; D/F = Dioxins/Furans

Table 2. Group 1 Furnaces with Reported Emissions Greater than 10 ug TEQ/Mg Feed

Table 3. Group 1 Furnace D/F Reduction Options
Option
                                Furnace Status
                              Number of Furnaces
                         Capital Cost[1] Each (2011 $)
                          Total Annualized  Cost Each
                                   (2011 $)
                      Combined Total Capital Cost (2011$)
                    Combined Total Annualized Cost (2011$)
Limit of 10 ug/Mg TEQ for all
Controlled
                                      11
                                    170,578
                                    112,188
                                  $5,050,000
                                   2,160,000
Limit of 10 ug/Mg TEQ for all
Uncontrolled
                                       1
                                   3,174,419
                                    926,856

[1] Controlled furnaces have fabric filters, and are assumed to add activated carbon injection. Uncontrolled furnaces are assumed to add direct injection fabric filters (DIFF).

Table 4. Cost-effectiveness Calculation for D/F Reduction Options
Option
                    Combined Total Annualized Cost (2011$)
                   Annual D/F Emission Reduction (grams TEQ)
                        D/F Removal Cost Effectiveness
                                 ($/gram TEQ)
Limit of 10 ug/Mg TEQ, assuming additional controls added that reduce D/F emissions by 85%
                                   2,160,000
                                     2.826
                                    765,000

                                  Appendix A

                            Southwire Test Results

Table A1.  Southwire Testing Reported June 26, 2007: Complete Test Results
* reported as 2378-TCDD equivalent

Table A2.  Southwire Testing Reported on June 26, 2007: Results in Pounds

Table A3.  Southwire Testing Reported September 5, 2007: Complete Test Results

Table A4.  Southwire Testing Reported on September 5, 2007: Results in Pounds


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359

FROM:	Conrad Chin, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	October 16, 2007

SUBJECT:	Teleconference with Foundry Industry Representatives on September 25, 2007

I.	Participants

Foundry Representatives:

Christian Richter

Jeff Hannapel

Jeet Radia

Steve Lewella

Craig Schmeisser

EPA Representatives

Steve Fruh

EPA Contractor

Jeff Coburn

II.	Summary of Discussion

Representatives of the iron and steel foundry industry conducted a conference call with EPA to discuss extending the comment period for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources.  The industry representatives indicated that they would request a public hearing to discuss their comments on the proposed rule.

Meeting Minutes Memorandum – September 25, 2007, Foundries Teleconference

  PAGE  2

Meeting Minutes Memorandum


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61441-61444]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25505]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65419 ; File No. SR-Nasdaq-2011-133]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
Regarding Simplification of the Exchange's $1 Strike Price Program

September 28, 2011.

    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 September 27, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposal for the NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'' or ``Exchange'') to amend Chapter IV, Supplementary Material
.02 to Section 6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) to
simplify the Exchange's $1 Strike Price Program (the ``$1 Strike
Program'' or ``Program'').
    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ's principal
office, on the Commission's Web site at http://

www.sec.gov, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 this proposed rule change is to modify Chapter IV,
Supplementary Material .02 to Section 6 to simplify the Exchange's $1
Strike Program.
    In 2008, the Commission issued an order permitting the Exchange to
establish the Program on a pilot basis.\4\ At that time, the underlying
stock had to close at $20 on the previous trading day in order to
qualify for the Program. The range of available $1 strike price
intervals was limited to a range between $3 and $20 and no strike price
was permitted that was greater than $5 from the underlying stock's
closing price on the previous trading day. Series in $1 strike price
intervals were not permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike. In
addition, the Exchange was limited to selecting five (5) classes and
reciprocal listing was permitted. Furthermore, LEAPS \5\ in $1 strike
price intervals were not permitted for classes selected to participate
in the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-
NASDAQ-2007-080) (order approving).
    \5\ Long-Term Equity Anticipation Securities (LEAPS) are long
term options that generally expire from twelve to thirty-nine months
from the time they are listed. Chapter IV, Section 8. Long-term
index options are considered separately in Chapter XIV, Section 11.
For purposes of the Program, long-term options (LEAPS) are
considered to be option series having greater than nine months until
expiration. Chapter IV, Supplementary Material .02 to Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the Program was expanded and the Commission granted
permanent approval of the Program.\6\ At that time, the Program was
expanded to increase the upper limit of the permissible strike price
range from $20 to $50. In addition, the number of class selections per
exchange was increased from five (5) to ten (10). Since the Program was
made permanent, the number of class selections per exchange has been
increased from ten (10) classes to 55 classes.\7\ The number of class
selections per exchange has been last expanded to 150 classes in
2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58093 (July 3,
2008), 73 FR 39756 (July 10, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-057).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59588 (March 17,
2009), 74 FR 12410 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-025).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62451 (July 6,
2010), 75 FR 40001 (July 13, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-083).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments To Simplify Non-LEAPS Rule Text
    The development and expansion of the Program has resulted in very
lengthy rule text that is complicated and could be difficult to
understand. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to simplify
the rule text of the Program will benefit market participants since the
Program will be easier to understand and will maintain the expansions
that were made to the Program in 2010. Through the current proposal,
the Exchange also hopes to make administration of the Program easier
(e.g., system programming efforts). To simply the rules of the Program
and, as a proactive attempt to mitigate any unintentional listing of
improper strikes, the Exchange is proposing the following streamlining
amendments:
     When the price of the underlying stock is equal to or less
than $20, permit $1 strike price intervals with an exercise price up to
100% above and 100% below the price of the underlying stock.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Chapter IV, Section 6, subparagraph .02(b)(i)
of Supplementary Material to Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] However, the above restriction would not prohibit the listing
of at least five (5) strike prices above and below the price of the
underlying stock per expiration month in an option class.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] For example, if the price of the underlying stock is $2, the
Exchange would be permitted to list the following series: $1, $2, $3,
$4, $5, $6 and $7.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     When the price of the underlying stock is greater than
$20, permit $1 strike price intervals with an exercise price up to 50%
above and 50% below the price of the underlying security up to $50.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Chapter IV, Section 6, subparagraph .02(b)(ii)
of Supplementary Material to Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For the purpose of adding strikes under the Program, the
``price of the underlying stock'' shall be measured in the same way as
``the price of the underlying security'' set forth in Chapter IV,
Section 6, subparagraph .06(a) of Supplementary Material to Section
6.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Chapter IV, Section 6, subparagraph
.02(b)(iii) of Supplementary Material to Section 6. Chapter IV,
Section 6, subparagraph .06(a) of Supplementary Material to Section
6 provides, in relevant part, that the price of the underlying
security is measured by: (i) For intra-day add-on series and next-
day series additions, the daily high and low of all prices reported
by all national securities exchanges; (ii) for new expiration
months, the daily high and low of all prices reported by all
national securities exchanges on the day the Exchange determines to
list a new series; and (iii) for option series to be added as a
result of pre-market trading, the most recent share price reported
by all national securities exchanges between 8:45 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.
Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Prohibit the listing of additional series in $1 strike
price intervals if the underlying stock closes at or above $50 in its
primary market and provide that additional series in $1 strike price
intervals may not be added until the underlying stock closes again
below $50.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange believes that other markets that have $1
strike programs will submit similar proposals to the Commission, and
therefore proposes the $50 dollar prohibition in this filing for
purposes of uniformity. The Exchange intends, however, to
subsequently propose an amendment to the $50 prohibition so that it
would not impede addition series in $1 strike price intervals in
certain circumstances (e.g. stock gapping).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments To Simplify LEAPS Rule Text
    The 2010 expansion of the Program permitted for some limited
listing of LEAPS in $1 strike price intervals for classes that
participate in the Program. The Exchange is proposing to maintain the
expansion as to LEAPS, but simplify the language and provide examples
of the simplified rule text. These changes are set forth in proposed
Chapter IV, Section 6, subparagraph .02(b)(v) of Supplementary Material
to Section 6.
    For stocks in the Program, the Exchange may list one $1 strike
price interval between each standard $5 strike interval, with the $1
strike price interval being $2 above the standard strike for each
interval above the price of the underlying stock, and $2 below the
standard strike for each interval below the price of the underlying
stock (``$2 wings''). For example, if the price of the underlying stock
is $24.50, the Exchange may list the following standard strikes in $5
intervals: $15, $20, $25, $30 and $35. Between these standard $5
strikes, the Exchange may

list the following $2 wings: $18, $27 and $32.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that a $2 wing is not permitted between
the standard $20 and $25 strikes in the above example. This is
because the $2 wings are added based on reference to the price of
the underlying and as being between the standard strikes above and
below the price of the underlying stock. Since the price of the
underlying stock ($24.50) straddles the standard strikes of $20 and
$25, no $2 wing is permitted between these standard strikes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange may list the $1 strike price interval
which is $2 above the standard strike just below the underlying price
at the time of listing. In the above example, since the standard strike
just below the underlying price ($24.50) is $20, the Exchange may list
a $22 strike. The Exchange may add additional long-term options series
strikes as the price of the underlying stock moves, consistent with the
OLPP.
Non-Substantive Amendments to Rule Text
    The 2010 expansion of the Program prohibited the listing of $2.50
strike price intervals for classes that participate in the Program.
This prohibition applies to non-LEAP and LEAPS. The Exchange proposes
to maintain this prohibition and codify it in proposed Chapter IV,
Section 6, subparagraph .02(a) of Supplementary Material to Section 6.
    For ease of reference, the Exchange is proposing to add the
headings ``$1 Strike Price Interval Program,'' ``Initial and Additional
Series,'' and ``LEAPS'' to Chapter IV, Section 6, Supplementary
Material to Section 6. And finally, the Exchange is making non-
substantive, technical changes to the proposed rule such as replacing
the word ``security'' with the word ``stock.''
    The Exchange also proposes to call the Program the $1 Strike
Program in Supplementary Material .02 to Section 6 for purposes of
consistency.
    The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity
to support the increase in new options series that will result from the
proposed streamlining changes to the Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the proposed rule change seeks to reduce
investor confusion and to simplify the provisions of the $1 Strike
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\20\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65383 (September
22, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-040) (order approving proposed rule change
to simplify the $1 Strike Price Interval Program).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Nasdaq-2011-133 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-Nasdaq-2011-133. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
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

publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Nasdaq-2011-133 and should be submitted on or before October 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25505 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51027-51030]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21901]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84348; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and
6, To List and Trade Shares of the Amplify BlackSwan Growth & Treasury
Core ETF Under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3)

October 3, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On July 31, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the Amplify BlackSwan Growth &
Treasury Core ETF (``Fund'') under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule
5.2-E(j)(3). On August 10, 2018, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the original
filing in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2018.\3\ On September 10, 2018, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, in its entirety.
On September 24, 2018, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change. On September 28, 2018, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and
superseded the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1,
2, and 3, in its entirety.\4\ On October 1, 2018, the Exchange
submitted and withdrew Amendment No. 5 to the proposed rule change. On
October 1, 2018, the Exchange also filed Amendment No. 6 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order grants approval of the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83845 (August 14,
2018), 83 FR 42188 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 4, the Exchange: (i) Amended the
description of the Fund's sub-advisers, the Index Provider (as
defined below), and the Index Committee (as defined below); (ii)
represented that the Index Provider has implemented and will
maintain procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material non-public information regarding the Index (as defined
below); (iii) amended the name of the Index; (iv) stated that the
Exchange believes that surveillances by other exchanges on which SPY
LEAPS trade should help to protect against market manipulation of
the Fund's Shares and SPY LEAPS; (v) clarified that statements and
representations in the filing regarding the description of, or
limitations on, the Index shall constitute continued listing
requirements for listing the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange;
(vi) stated that the value of the Index will be widely disseminated
by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day;
(vii) clarified the availability of certain information on the
Fund's website; and (viii) made certain technical and conforming
changes. Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change is available
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-57/nysearca201857.htm. Amendment No. 4 is not subject to notice and
comment because it does not materially alter the substance of the
proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 6, the Exchange: (i) Clarified that the
Index Provider is not registered as an investment adviser and is not
affiliated with an investment adviser; and (ii) made certain
technical and conforming changes. Amendment No. 6 to the proposed
rule change is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-57/nysearca201857.htm. Amendment No. 6 is not subject
to notice and comment because it does not materially alter the
substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or novel
regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 4 and 6 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information regarding the Fund and the Shares, see
Amendment No. 4, supra note 4 and Amendment No. 6, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Commentary
.02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), which governs the listing and
trading of Investment Company Units on the Exchange. The Fund will be
an index-based exchange traded fund (``ETF''). The Shares will be
offered by the Amplify ETF Trust (``Trust''), which is registered with
the Commission as an investment company and has filed a registration
statement on Form N-1A (``Registration Statement'') with the Commission
on behalf of the Fund.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange states that, on June 26, 2018, the Trust filed
a Registration Statement on Form N-1A on behalf of the Fund (File
Nos. 333-207937 and 811-23108). In addition, the Exchange states
that the Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive
relief to the Trust under the Investment Company Act of 1940 Act.
See Investment Company Act Release No. 31822 (September 14, 2015)
(File No. 812-14424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amplify Investments LLC will be the Fund's investment adviser
(``Adviser''). CSAT Investment Advisory, L.P., d/b/a Exponential ETFs
and ARGI Investment Services LLC will be the Fund's sub-advisers
(``Sub-Advisers'').\8\ U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC will be the
administrator, custodian, and fund accounting and transfer agent for
the Fund. Quasar Distributors LLC will serve as the distributor for the
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not registered
as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has
implemented and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its
broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning
the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. The
Exchange represents that the Sub-Advisers are not registered as a
broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Exchange
further represents that, in the event (a) the Adviser or a Sub-
Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated
with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a
registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer,
it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its
relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access
to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the
portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the
use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding
the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Fund's Underlying Index

    According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek investment results
that generally correspond (before fees and expenses) to the price and
yield of the S-Network BlackSwan Core Total Return Index (``Index'').
The Index was created and is maintained by S-Network Global Networks,
Inc. (``Index Provider'').\9\ The Index is also compiled and calculated
by the Index Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the Exchange, the Index Provider is not
registered as an investment adviser or broker-dealer and is not
affiliated with an investment adviser or broker-dealer. The Exchange
states that the Index Provider has implemented and will maintain
procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material
non-public information regarding the Index. In addition, the
Exchange states that the Index Provider is not affiliated with the
Fund, the Adviser, or the Sub-Advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Index is a rules-based, quantitative
index that seeks to provide capital protection against the
unpredictable, rare, and highly disruptive events that have come to be
referred to as ``Black Swans.'' The Index endeavors to provide
investment returns that correspond to those of the

S&P 500 Index, while mitigating against significant losses.
    The Index is composed of U.S. Treasury securities and long-dated
call options (``LEAPS'') \10\ on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (``SPY'')
\11\ (which options are referred to herein as ``SPY LEAPS''). Twice a
year, in June and December, on the Index reconstitution and rebalance
date, the Index places 90% of its index market capitalization in the
portfolio of U.S. Treasury securities and 10% of its index market
capitalization in the portfolio of SPY LEAPS. The U.S. Treasury
portfolio of the Index is composed of 2-, 3-, 5-, 7-, 10-, and 30-year
U.S. Treasury securities that cumulatively provide a portfolio duration
that matches the initial duration of the 10-year U.S. Treasury
security.\12\ The SPY LEAPS portfolio of the Index is composed of in-
the-money SPY LEAPS that, at the time of purchase, have expirations of
at least one year and one day in the future and expire in either June
or December, as applicable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ LEAPS are long-term options traded on U.S. options
exchanges.
    \11\ Shares of SPY are listed and traded on the Exchange.
    \12\ The Exchange states that the treasury position holds 5% of
its allocated portion of Index market capitalization in a
``barbell'' portfolio of 2- and 30-year treasuries, and 95% of its
allocated portion of Index market capitalization in a core portfolio
that invests in 3-, 5-, 7-, 10-, and 30-year treasuries.
    \13\ The Exchange states that the SPY LEAPS will generally have
a delta of 70 at the time of purchase, and should there not be a 70-
delta option, the closest option above 70 will be utilized. The
Exchange states that the options portion of the Index holds 5% of
the Index market capitalization in June 70-delta SPY LEAPS and 5% in
December 70-delta SPY LEAPS. At each June reconstitution, the Index
liquidates its existing June SPY LEAPS and purchases SPY LEAPS that
expire the following June. The December SPY LEAPS positions will
remain unchanged at each June reconstitution. At each December
reconstitution, the Index liquidates its existing December SPY LEAPS
and purchases SPY LEAPS that expire the following December. The June
SPY LEAPS positions will remain unchanged at each December
reconstitution. Net gains or losses derived from the reconstitutions
of the SPY LEAPS positions will be added to or subtracted from the
U.S. Treasury portfolio at each reconstitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Index is governed by a committee (``Index Committee'') that is
responsible for overseeing the activities of the Index Provider and
approving all changes to the Index related to its semi-annual
reconstitutions and rebalances. According to the Exchange, all members
of the Index Committee and their advisors must comply with the Index
Provider's code of conduct and ethics with respect to the disclosure
and use of material non-public information.

B. The Fund's Principal Investments

    Under normal market conditions,\14\ the Fund will invest at least
80% of its total assets in the securities that comprise the Index,
which, as described above, are U.S. Treasury securities and SPY LEAPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``normal market conditions'' is as that term is
defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Fund's Non-Principal Investments

    While, under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at
least 80% of its total assets in securities that comprise the Index,
the Fund may also hold cash and cash equivalents.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``cash equivalents'' has the meaning specified in
Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Application of Generic Listing Requirements

    The Exchange represents that it has submitted the proposed rule
change because the Index does not meet all of the generic listing
requirements of Commentary .02(a) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3).
Specifically, because the Index includes SPY LEAPS, the Index does not
satisfy the requirement set forth in Commentary .02(a)(1) to NYSE Arca
Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), which states that the index or portfolio underlying a
series of Investment Company Units must consist of (i) only Fixed
Income Securities \16\ or (ii) Fixed Income Securities and cash. The
Exchange represents that, with the exception of the requirement in
Commentary .02(a)(1) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), the Index and the
Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in
NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) and NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) states that
``Fixed Income Securities'' are debt securities that are notes,
bonds, debentures or evidence of indebtedness that include, but are
not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury securities, government-
sponsored entity securities, municipal securities, trust preferred
securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a
subdivision thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and 6, is consistent with the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\17\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and 6, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which requires, among
other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Shares do not qualify for generic listing
under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) because the Index
includes SPY LEAPS. The Commission notes that the Exchange represents
that, other than Commentary .02(a)(1) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3),
the Shares will meet the initial and continued listing criteria under
NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(3) and 5.5-E(g)(2). The Commission also notes
that SPY LEAPS are traded on U.S. options exchanges, SPY is listed and
traded on the Exchange, and SPY is based on the S&P 500 Index.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange also notes that the S&P 500 Index would meet
the generic listing standards applicable to an index composed of
U.S. Component Stocks in Commentary .01(a) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-
E(j)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\20\ which sets forth Congress's
finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the
protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be
available via the Consolidated Tape Association high-speed line.
Information regarding market price and trading volume for the Shares
will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day
on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information
regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume
information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial
section of newspapers. In addition, the Intraday Indicative Value
(``IIV'') (as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), Commentary .02(c))
will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core
Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors.\21\ The value
of the Index will be widely disseminated by one or more major market
data vendors at least once per day. Information about the Index
constituents, the weighting of the

constituents, the Index's methodology, and the Index's rules will be
available on the Index Provider's website. Quotation and last sale
information for SPY LEAPS will be available from the exchange on which
they are traded and through the Options Price Reporting Authority. The
intraday, closing, and settlement prices of exchange-traded options
also will be available from the options exchanges, automated quotation
systems, published or other public sources, or online information
services. Price information on U.S. Treasury securities and cash
equivalents will be available from major broker-dealer firms or market
data vendors, automated quotation systems, published or other public
sources, or online information services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange states that all Fund holdings will be included
in calculating the IIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund's website, which will be publicly available prior to the
public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for
the Fund and additional data relating to the net asset value (``NAV'')
and other applicable quantitative information. On each business day,
before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on
the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its website information
regarding each portfolio holding of the Fund. In addition, a portfolio
composition file, which will include the security names and quantities
of securities and other assets required to be delivered in exchange for
the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components,
will be publicly disseminated prior to the opening of the Exchange via
the National Securities Clearing Corporation.
    The Commission also believes that the proposal is reasonably
designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be
necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when
a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. Trading in
Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in
NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions
or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading the
Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in the Shares will be subject
to NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(g)(2)(b), which sets forth circumstances under
which Shares of the Fund may and/or will be halted. The Exchange will
obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV will
be calculated daily every day the New York Stock Exchange is open and
that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the
same time. Under NYSE Arca Rule 7.18-E(d)(2), if the Exchange becomes
aware that the NAV is not being disseminated to all market participants
at the same time, it will halt trading until such time as the NAV is
available to all market participants.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that:
    (1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing
criteria under NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(3) and 5.5(E)(g)(2), except
that the Index will not meet the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-
E(j)(3), Commentary .02(a)(1) in that the Index will include SPY LEAPS.
    (2) The Shares will comply with all other requirements applicable
to Investment Company Units, including the dissemination of key
information such as the Index value, the NAV, and the IIV, rules
governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading
halts, firewalls for the Index Provider, Adviser and Sub-Advisers,
surveillance, and the Information Bulletin, as set forth in Exchange
rules applicable to Investment Company Units and the orders approving
such rules.
    (3) The Shares will be subject to the existing trading
surveillances administered by the Exchange and Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') on behalf of the Exchange, which are
designed to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and
applicable federal securities laws relating to trading on the
Exchange.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange states that FINRA conducts cross-market
surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory
services agreement, and that the Exchange is responsible for FINRA's
performance under this regulatory services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The Exchange, or FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will
communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and SPY LEAPS
with other markets and other entities that are members of the
Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG''), and the Exchange, or FINRA on
behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information
regarding trading in the Shares and SPY LEAPS from such markets and
other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information
regarding trading in the Shares and SPY LEAPS from markets and other
entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in
place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA,
on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade
information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund
reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine.
    (5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform
its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special
characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
    (6) The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment
objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. The Fund's
investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple
or inverse multiple (e.g., 2x or -2x) of the Index.
    (7) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in
compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at
the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
    (9) All statements and representations made in the filing regarding
(a) the description of the Index, portfolio or reference asset, (b)
limitations on the Index or portfolio holdings or reference assets, or
(c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in the rule
filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the
Shares of the Fund on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer is required
to notify the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the
continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor \24\ for
compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not
in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange
will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission notes that certain proposals for the listing
and trading of exchange-traded products include a representation
that the exchange will ``surveil'' for compliance with the continued
listing requirements. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
77499 (April 1, 2016), 81 FR 20428, 20432 (April 7, 2016) (SR-BATS-
2016-04). In the context of this representation, it is the
Commission's view that ``monitor'' and ``surveil'' both mean ongoing
oversight of compliance with the continued listing requirements.
Therefore, the Commission does not view ``monitor'' as a more or
less stringent obligation than ``surveil'' with respect to the
continued listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's statements
and representations, including those set forth above and in Amendment
Nos. 4 and 6.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and 6, is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ and Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the
Act \26\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2018-57), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 4 and 6 be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21901 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48501-48502]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2685-029]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene and Protests; New York Power Authority

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2685-029.
    c. Date filed: April 27, 2017.
    d. Applicant: New York Power Authority (NYPA).
    e. Name of Project: Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage Project
(Blenheim-Gilboa Project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on Schoharie Creek, in
the Towns of Blenheim and Gilboa in Schoharie County, New York. The
project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Daly, Licensing Manager, New York
Power Authority, 123 Main Street, White Plains, New York 10601.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2685-029.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Blenheim-Gilboa Project consists of the following:
(1) A 2.25-mile-long, 30-foot-wide earth and rock fill embankment dike
with a maximum height of 110 feet, constructed at Brown Mountain and
forming the 399-acre Upper Reservoir (operating at the maximum and
extreme minimum elevations of 2,003 feet and 1,955 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 29], respectively) with 15,085
acre-feet of usable storage and dead storage of 3,706 acre-feet below
elevation 1,955 feet NGVD 29; (2) a 655-foot-long emergency spillway
with a 25-foot-wide asphaltic concrete crest at elevation 2,005 feet
NGVD 29 and a capacity of 10,200 cubic feet per second (cfs); (3) an
intake system that includes: (i) a 125-foot-wide hexagonal-shaped
intake cover with trash racks with a clear spacing of 5.25 inches; (ii)
a 1,042-foot-long, 28-foot-diameter, concrete-lined vertical shaft in
the bottom of the Upper Reservoir; (iii) a 906-foot-long horizontal,
concrete-lined rock tunnel; and (iv) a 460-foot-long concrete-lined
manifold that distributes flow to four 12-foot-diameter steel-lined
penstocks, each with a maximum length of about 1,960 feet, to four
pump-turbines located at the powerhouse; (4) a 526-foot-long, 172-foot-
wide, and 132-foot-high multi-level powerhouse located along the east
bank of the Lower Reservoir at the base of Brown Mountain, containing
four reversible pump turbines that each produce approximately 290
megawatts (MW) in generation mode, and have a total maximum discharge
of 12,800 cfs during generation and 10,200 cfs during pumping; (5) a
bottom trash rack with a clear spacing of 5.625 inches, and four upper
trash racks with a clear spacing of 5.25 inches; (6) an 1,800-foot-long
central core, rock-filled lower dam with a maximum height of 100 feet
that impounds Schoharie Creek to form the 413-acre Lower Reservoir
(operating at the maximum and minimum elevations of 900 feet and 860
feet NGVD 29, respectively) with 12,422 acre-feet of usable storage and
dead storage of 3,745 acre-feet below 860 feet NGVD 29; (7) three 38-
foot-wide by 45.5-foot-high Taintor gates at the left end of the lower
dam; (8) a 425-foot-long, 134-foot-wide concrete spillway structure
with a crest elevation of 855 feet NGVD 29; (9) a 238-foot-long, 68.5-
foot-deep concrete stilling basin; (10) a low level outlet with four
discharge valves of 4, 6, 8, and 10 inches for release of 5 to 25 cfs,
and two 36-inch-diameter Howell-Bunger valves to release a combined
flow of 25 to 700 cfs; (11) a switchyard on the eastern bank of
Schoharie Creek adjacent to the powerhouse; and (12) appurtenant
facilities.
    During operation, the Blenheim-Gilboa Project's pump-turbines may
be turned on or off several times throughout the day, but the project
typically generates electricity during the day when consumer demand is
high and other power resources are more expensive. Pumping usually
occurs at night and on weekends when there is excess electricity in the
system available for use. According to a July 30, 1975, settlement
agreement, NYPA releases a minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second
(cfs) during low-flow periods when 1,500 acre-feet of water is in
storage, and 7 cfs when less than 1,500 acre-feet is in storage. For
the period 2007 through 2016, the project's average annual generation
was about 374,854 megawatt-hours (MWh) and average annual energy
consumption from pumping was about 540,217 MWh.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, 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 field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST
or MOTION TO INTERVENE; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of motions to intervene and protests  December 11, 2017.
Issuance of Ready for Environmental          January 4, 2018.
 Analysis notice.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary       March 5, 2018.
 terms and conditions, and preliminary
 fishway prescriptions.
Reply comments due.........................  April 19, 2018.
Commission Issues Draft EA.................  September 1, 2018.
Comments on Draft EA.......................  October 1, 2018.
Modified terms and conditions due..........  November 30, 2018.
Commission issues Final EA.................  February 28, 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22534 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51983-51986]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0800; FRL-10000-47-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Jefferson County Existing and New VOC
Storage Vessels Rule Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet), through
a letter dated March 15, 2018. The revisions were submitted by the
Cabinet on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District (District, also referred to herein as Jefferson County) and
make minor ministerial amendments to applicability dates and standards
for both existing and new storage vessels for volatile organic
compounds (VOC). EPA is finalizing approval of the changes because they
are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0800. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky SIP that were provided to EPA through a
letter dated March 15, 2018.\1\ Specifically, EPA is finalizing
approval of these SIP revisions that make changes to Jefferson County
Regulation 6.13, Standard of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels
for Volatile Organic Compounds, and Regulation 7.12, Standard of
Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds.\2\
The SIP revisions update the current SIP-approved versions of
Regulation 6.13 (Version 6) and Regulation 7.12 (Version 6) to Version
7 of each. The changes to Jefferson County Regulations 6.13 and 7.12
are administrative in nature and will better align the two regulations,
reconciling their respective applicability based on the date of a
facility's construction, modification, or reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the Agency received the SIP revisions on
March 23, 2018.
    \2\ EPA also notes that the Agency received several other
revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP
submitted with the same March 15, 2018, cover letter. EPA will be
considering action on the remaining revisions in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 5, 2019
(84 FR 26030), EPA proposed to approve the aforementioned changes to
Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP, which address the control of emissions from existing and
new VOC storage vessels, respectively. The NPRM provides additional
details regarding EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or
before July 5, 2019.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments from one commenter on its June 5, 2019,
NPRM. These comments are provided in the docket for this final action.
EPA has summarized and responded to the comments below.
    Comment 1: The commenter notes the change of applicability dates in
Regulation 6.13 and states that the Jefferson County regulations are
based on Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Subpart K.
``However, Subpart K only applies to vessels constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after June 11, 1973 and prior to May 19,
1978,'' states the commenter. The commenter also states that
``Jefferson County's regulations seem to require more stringent
standards'' and suggests that EPA ``confirm through formal notification
from Kentucky and Jefferson County that they are allowed to impose more
stringent standards than those by the federal government.''
    Response 1: The change of applicability dates in Version 7 of
Regulation 6.13 was made to eliminate an overlap that existed with
respect to the applicability dates of Regulations 6.13 and 7.12. Under
the previous versions of Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, facilities
constructed, reconstructed, or modified after April 19, 1972, and
before September 1, 1976, were subject to both Regulation 6.13 and
7.12. This redundancy prompted the District to change the date for
Regulation 6.13 so that Regulation 6.13 applies to VOC storage vessels
that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or
before April 19, 1972.
    Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 are similar to the Federal NSPS, subpart
K. However, by virtue of the VOC-storage-vessel capacity and the dates
identified in Section 1, Applicability, of Regulations 6.13 and 7.12,
both Regulations cover a wider range of facilities than does subpart K.
The commenter seems to suggest that the larger applicability scope of
the Jefferson County regulations as compared to that of subpart K makes
the Jefferson County regulations more stringent than federal
requirements. Regardless of whether or not that is true, state and
local agencies are allowed under federal law to adopt regulations that
are more stringent than those required by the CAA, and EPA is required
by the Act to approve such SIP revisions if they meet the applicable
requirements of the Act, as these revisions do. See Union Elec. Co. v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 262-65 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3).
    Likewise, with respect to state and local law, Kentucky law
includes a stringency restriction with respect to regulations adopted
by the Cabinet,\3\ but the regulations of the District are not subject
to such a limitation. Indeed, Kentucky law authorizes the District,
through its Air Pollution Control Board, to adopt and enforce all
orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the
purposes of Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 77. See Ky. Rev. Stat.
Sec.  77.180. Kentucky law also provides that an air pollution control
district like the District is not prohibited from adopting regulations
stricter than the state statutory or regulatory provisions that would
otherwise apply to sources of air pollution within a district. See id.
at Sec.  77.170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Kentucky law provides that the Cabinet ``shall have the
authority, power, and duty to . . . [p]reserve existing clean air
resources while ensuring economic growth by issuing regulations,
which shall be no more stringent than federal requirements. . . .''
Ky. Rev. Stat. Sec.  224.10-100(26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter states, ``Regulation 6.13 and 7.12 require
sources to remain in compliance with this regulation for the rest of
time unless the source changes its process to one not covered by this
regulation.'' The commenter believes this is ``an attempt at codifying
the `once in, always in' policy,'' which EPA recently rescinded. The
commenter states, ``EPA should not allow the county or state to include
this requirement into its SIP as EPA itself has stated it is illegal
under the MACT standards so therefore it must be illegal under SIP
rules.''
    Response 2: The ``once in always in'' policy addressed the
classification of major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
under section 112 of the CAA. EPA issued a new memorandum on January
25, 2018, which withdrew and replaced the ``once in, always in'' policy
with guidance that sources of hazardous air pollutants

previously classified as ``major sources'' may be reclassified as
``area'' sources when the facility limits its potential to emit HAP
below major source thresholds.\4\ EPA subsequently proposed to codify
that guidance. See 84 FR 36304 (July 26, 2019). Here, the regulations
that are being incorporated into the Kentucky SIP are local VOC (i.e.,
precursor of ozone, a criteria pollutant) regulations being approved by
EPA pursuant to CAA section 110, and thus are not subject to the ``once
in, always in'' policy or its more recent replacement, which apply to
sources of HAPs regulated pursuant to CAA section 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This memorandum is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson
County Regulation 6.13, Standard of Performance for Existing Storage
Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, Version 7, and Regulation 7.12,
Standard of Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic
Compounds, Version 7, both state effective January 17, 2018. These
revisions are administrative in nature and will better align the two
regulations, reconciling their respective applicability based on the
date of a facility's construction, modification, or reconstruction, and
the true vapor pressure. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP revisions that make
changes to the District's Regulation 6.13 and Regulation 7.12. These
SIP revisions update the current SIP-approved versions of Regulation
6.13 (Version 6) and Regulation 7.12 (Version 6) to Version 7 of each
in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. These rule
revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The changes are administrative in nature and
clarify the regulations' applicability.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart (S)--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920, in paragraph (c), table 2 is amended:
0
a. Under ``Reg 6-Standards of Performance for Existing Affected
Facilities'' by revising the entry for ``6.13''; and
0
b. Under ``Reg 7-Standards of Performance for New Affected Facilities''
by revising the entry for ``7.12''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                         Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                District
      Reg             Title/subject        EPA approval    Federal Register      effective        Explanation
                                               date             notice             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Reg 6--Standards of Performance for Existing Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
6.13..........  Standard of Performance        10/1/2019  [Insert Federal            1/17/18
                 for Existing Storage                      Register citation
                 Vessels for Volatile                      Register].
                 Organic Compounds.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                           Reg 7--Standards of Performance for New Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
7.12..........  Standard of Performance        10/1/2019  [Insert Federal            1/17/18
                 for New Storage Vessels                   Register
                 of Volatile Organic                       citation].
                 Compounds.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-20842 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15680-15681]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-8-000]

BP West Coast Products LLC, Complaints, v. SFPP, L.P.,
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 23, 2007, BP West Coast Products LLC,
tendered for filing a complaint against SFPP, L.P. challenging the
justness and reasonableness of SFPP's 205 index rate increases.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 e-mail
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 April 12, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5996 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30366]
[DOCID:fr31my07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-455-000]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Propsoed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

May 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2007, Tuscarora Gas Transmission
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
June 18, 2007:

Second Revised Sheet No. 0
Third Revised Sheet No. 37D
Third Revised Sheet No. 63
Second Revised Sheet No. 104
Second Revised Sheet No. 113
First Revised Sheet No. 117
Second Revised Sheet No. 123
Second Revised Sheet No. 130

    Tuscarora states that these sheets are being submitted to update
contact information throughout the Tariff consistent with a recent
change in ownership of the pipeline.
    Tuscarora further states that a copy of this filing has been served
on Tuscarora's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory
agencies.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 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 e-mail
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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10426 Filed 5-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P