[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39234-39236]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0233]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Verdigris River Mile Marker 444.5 to 443.5

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent safety zone
for an annually recurring marine event in the Verdigris River, from
Mile Marker (MM) 444.5 to MM 443.5 in Catoosa, Oklahoma. This action is
necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety
hazards associated with a fireworks display taking place between late
June to early July, 2016 and recurring annually thereafter. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP), Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0233 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Krissy Marlin, Sector Lower
Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The second annual Liberty Fest is planned to take place on the
Verdigris River on July 4th or the first or second weekend before the
holiday and is anticipated to continue annually. The Coast Guard
established a safety zone for the Liberty Fest fireworks display in
2015 through a temporary final rulemaking. For this year and subsequent
years, we propose to establish the safety zone as a permanent annually
recurring regulation to safeguard against the hazards associated with a
fireworks display on the Verdigris River, near Catoosa, Oklahoma.
    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this proposed safety zone is to protect
both spectators and participants from the hazards associated with a
fireworks display on or over the waterway.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Lower Mississippi River proposes to establish a safety
zone for approximately 30-45 minutes occurring between 9:00 p.m. and
11:00 p.m. on one day during July 4th or the first or second weekend
before the holiday, occurring annually. The proposed safety zone would
encompass all waters of the Verdigris River from Mile Marker (MM) 444.5
to (MM) 443.5 and would cover the time period necessary to ensure
safety on the waterway before, during, and after the display. No vessel
or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the time, location
and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be restricted
from entering, transiting, or anchoring within a small portion of the
Verdigris River for approximately 30-45 minutes during the evening,
when vessel transits are less frequent, on one day on July 4th or the
first or second weekend before the holiday. Vessels may request
permission from the COTP to deviate from the restriction and transit
through the safety zone and notifications to the marine community would
be made through local notice to mariners (LNM) and broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM). Therefore, those operating on the waterway would be
able to plan operations around the proposed safety zone and its
enforcement times.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
establishing a temporary safety zone for approximately 30-45 minutes
during the evening on one day on July 4th or the first or second
weekend before each year on the Verdigris River from (MM) 444.5 to (MM)
443.5. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1

0
2. In Sec.  165.801, amend table 6, as proposed to be amended at 81 FR
17635 on March 30, 2016, by adding an entry for line 14 to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.801  Annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth
Coast Guard District requiring safety zones.

* * * * *

           Table 6 of Sec.   165.801--Sector Lower Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Sector lower MS river
                 Date                        Sponsor/name               location               Safety zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
14. July 4th or the first or second    LibertyFest............  Verdigris River,         Regulated Area:
 weekend before.                                                 Catoosa, OK.             Verdigris River mile
                                                                                marker 444.5 to 443.5,
                                                                                Catoosa, OK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: June 9, 2016.
J.L. Adams,
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port,
Memphis, Tennessee.
[FR Doc. 2016-14034 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5591-5592]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01874]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-580, OMB Control No. 3235-0642]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Mutual Fund Interactive Data

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Open-end management investment companies (``funds'') are required
to submit to the Commission information included in their registration
statements, or information included in or amended by post-effective
amendments thereto, in response to Items 2, 3, and 4 (``risk/return
summary information'') of Form N-1A (17 CFR 239.15A and 274.11A) in
interactive data format and to post it on their Web sites, if any, in
interactive data form. In addition, funds are required to submit an
interactive data file to the Commission for any form of prospectus
filed pursuant to rule 497(c) or (e) (17 CFR 230.497) under the
Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act'') (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.)
that includes risk/return summary information that varies from the
registration statement and to post the interactive data file on their
Web sites, if any.
    The title for the collection of information for submitting risk/
return summary information in interactive data format is ``Mutual Fund
Interactive Data.'' This collection of information relates to
regulations and forms adopted under the Securities Act, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), and the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) that set forth disclosure
requirements for funds and other issuers. The purpose of the Mutual
Fund Interactive Data requirements is to make risk/return summary
information easier for investors to analyze and to assist in automating
regulatory filings and business information processing.
    Funds are required to file an initial registration statement on
Form N-1A and to update that registration statement annually. The
Commission estimates that each fund will submit one interactive data
document as an exhibit to a registration statement or a post-effective
amendment thereto on Form N-1A that includes or amends information
provided in response to Items 2, 3 or 4 annually. In addition, based on
a review by Commission staff of Mutual Fund Interactive Data
submissions in calendar year 2013, the Commission estimates that 36% of
funds will provide risk/return summary information as interactive data
in additional filings submitted pursuant to rule 485(b) (17 CFR
230.485(b)) or rule 497 under the Securities Act annually.
    The Commission estimates that the total annual hour burden
associated with tagging risk/return summary information is
approximately 11 hours. Based on estimates of 10,559 funds each
submitting one interactive data document as an exhibit to a
registration statement or post-effective amendment thereto and 3,801
funds submitting an additional interactive data document as an exhibit
to a filing pursuant to rule 485(b) or rule 497, each incurring 11
hours per year on average, the Commission estimates that, in the
aggregate, the tagging of risk/return summary information will result
in approximately 157,960 annual burden hours. In addition, the
Commission estimates that funds will require an average of
approximately one burden hour to post interactive data to their Web
sites. Based on estimates of 10,559 funds each posting one interactive
data document as an exhibit to a registration statement or post-
effective amendment thereto and 3,801 funds posting an additional
interactive data document as an exhibit to a filing pursuant to rule
485(b) or rule 497, each incurring one burden hour per year on average,
the Commission estimates that, in the aggregate, Mutual Fund
Interactive Data Web site posting requirements will result in
approximately 14,360 annual burden hours.
    The Commission estimates that the average cost burden per fund is
$890 per year. Based on the estimate of 10,559 funds using software
and/or consulting services at an annual cost of $890, the Commission
estimates that, in the aggregate, the total external costs to the
industry will be approximately $9.4 million.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms.
    The collection of information under the Mutual Fund Interactive
Data

requirements is mandatory for all funds. Responses to the disclosure
requirements will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01874 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33659-33660]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1769-000]

Chicot Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Chicot Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 16, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all

interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page
(http://ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 27, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11835 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53237-53238]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1121-127]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Recreation Plan Amendment.
    b. Project No: 1121-127.
    c. Date Filed: September 14, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the mainstem Battle Creek,
North Fork Battle Creek, and South Fork Battle Creek, in Shasta and
Tehama counties, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Elisabeth Rossi, License Coordinator,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Mail Code N13E, P.O. Box 770000, San
Francisco, CA 94177,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Jon Cofrancesco,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 15, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (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-1121-127. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears 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. Description of Request: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(licensee) filed a revised recreation plan proposing to delete a new
fishing access area on the Cross Country Canal required under the
project's current recreation plan. While beginning construction of the
new site, the licensee discovered historical artifacts and immediately
stopped work. After further assessment, it has been determined that
construction of the new fishing access site cannot proceed without
impacting cultural resources. After finding no suitable alternatives
for the new site and given the current low recreation use of existing
informal canal fishing access sites in the area, the licensee proposes
to remove the required new site from the project's recreation plan. The
proposed revised recreation plan reflects the deletion of this fishing
access site, as well as the deletion of extraneous or outdated
information. All other aspects of the current recreation plan would
remain the same.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website 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. You may also 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, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. 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 comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (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 commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: October 16, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22947 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9989-9990]
[DOCID:fr04mr10-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61583; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Intermarket Linkage Rules

February 25, 2010.
    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 February 19, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Exchange Rule 1088, Phase Out of
Intermarket Linkage Rules.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate Exchange
Rule 1088, a temporary rule titled Phase Out of Intermarket Linkage
Rules because this rule is no longer necessary.
    On June 17, 2008, the Exchange filed the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Plan''), joining all other approved
options markets in adopting the Plan.\3\ The Plan requires each options
exchange to adopt rules implementing various requirements specified in
the Plan.\4\ The Plan replaces the former Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Linkage (``Linkage Plan'').\5\
The Linkage Plan required Participating Options Exchanges to operate a
stand-alone system or ``Linkage'' for sending order-flow between
exchanges to limit trade-throughs.\6\ The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') operated the Linkage system (the ``System'').\7\ The Exchange
adopted various new rules in connection with the Plan to avoid trade-
throughs and locked markets, among other things.\8\ The Exchange
currently offers private routing directly to away markets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60405 (July 20,
2009) (National Market System Plan Relating to Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets). The Plan is a national
market system plan proposed by the seven existing options exchanges
and approved by the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 59647 (March 30, 2009), 74 FR 15010 (April 2, 2009) (File No. 4-
546) (``Plan Notice'') and 60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362
(August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546) (``Plan Approval''). The seven
options exchanges are: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''); International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc. (``BOX''); The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'');
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''); and
Phlx (each exchange individually a ``Participant'' and, together,
the ``Participating Options Exchanges'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60363 (July 22,
2009), 74 FR 37270 (July 28, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-61). Linkage was
governed by the Options Linkage Authority under the conditions set
forth under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an
Intermarket Option Linkage approved by the Commission. The
registered U.S. options markets are linked together on a real-time
basis through a network capable of transporting orders and messages
to and from each market.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60363 (July 22,
2009), 74 FR 37270 (July 28, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-61). Linkage was
governed by the Options Linkage Authority under the conditions set
forth under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an
Intermarket Option Linkage approved by the Commission. The
registered U.S. options markets are linked together on a real-time
basis through a network capable of transporting orders and messages
to and from each market.
    \6\ See footnote 5.
    \7\ See footnote 5.
    \8\ See footnote 3.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1080(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange adopted Exchange Temporary Rule 1088 in order to
facilitate the participation of certain Participating Options Exchanges
who may require the use of P/A Orders and Principal Orders after
implementation of the Plan.\10\ Certain Participating Options Exchanges
required a temporary transition period during which they continued to
utilize these order types that existed under the Linkage Plan. The
Exchange proposed substantially similar rules with that of the other
Participating Options Exchanges to accommodate the possibility of
continued use of P/A Orders and Principal Orders. At this time all
Participating Options Exchanges have discontinued use of the Linkage
Plan. The Exchange proposes at this time to delete Temporary Rule 1088
because it is no longer necessary in light of the discontinued use of
the Linkage Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 60550 (August
20, 2009), 74 FR 44430 (August 28, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it 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, by proposing the elimination of Temporary Rule 1088, which
reflects usage of a former Linkage Plan that has since been replaced by
a new Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) 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, if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-23 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-Phlx-2010-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.\15\ Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Phlx-2010-23 and should be submitted on or before March 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com, on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4454 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1796-1798]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00327]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0457; FRL-10004-06-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Revisions to Aerospace VOC Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GA EPD), on June 6, 2019, for the purpose of updating Georgia's rule
titled Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. EPA is proposing action on this
Georgia SIP revision under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0457 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, 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. EPA's Action

A. Background

    The action being proposed revises the reasonably available control
technology (RACT) standard for VOC emissions at aerospace manufacturing
and rework facilities in the State of Georgia. Additionally, other
administrative changes are being proposed in this action.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt RACT rules
for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as
moderate or above. Under Section 182(b)(2), these RACT requirements
apply to: (1) Sources covered by an existing Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) (i.e., a CTG issued prior to enactment of the 1990
amendments to the CAA); (2) sources covered by a post-enactment CTG;
and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG (i.e., non-CTG sources).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165, a major source for a moderate ozone area is
a source that emits 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or nitrogen
oxides (NOX).
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limit that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.'' See 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979). EPA has
issued CTGs that present feasible RACT control measures for VOC source
categories. The CTGs recommend a ``presumptive norm'' or ``presumptive
RACT'' that EPA believes satisfies the definition of RACT.
    The CTGs established by EPA are guidance to the states and only
provide recommendations. A state can develop its own strategy for what
constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories. EPA will review that
strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether it
meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
    EPA promulgated a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities on September 1, 1995. See 60 FR 45948. The NESHAP is
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. Subsequently, in December 1997,
EPA published a CTG titled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations.'' \1\ EPA subsequently amended the NESHAP on December 7,
2015 (80 FR 76152) to incorporate revisions to the emission standards
for specialty coatings, allow for annual purchase records of certain
coatings, exempt two additional application methods, and update
definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctg_act/199712_voc_epa453_r-97-004_aerospace_rework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA initially approved GA EPD's RACT for aerospace manufacturing
and rework facilities--codified at Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk)--on July
10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). EPA approved subsequent amendments to that rule
on September 28, 2012 (77 FR 55994) and March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16783)
(correcting amendments), including Georgia's expansion of the rule's
applicability to include all the counties in the Atlanta nonattainment
area. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities that are located within or
contribute to ozone levels in ozone nonattainment areas. The rules also
limit VOC emissions from major sources (emitting greater than 100 tpy
of VOC emissions) located outside the ozone nonattainment area.

B. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    Georgia's June 6, 2019, submission amends RACT requirements
applicable to VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). The rule changes
incorporate EPA's December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76152) revisions to the
NESHAP. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to conclude that the
revisions are consistent with the CAA and the CTG.
    The changes in the June 6, 2019, submittal replicate updates made
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, and are compliant with the State's RACT
requirements. The amendments begin at Table (kkk)-1 Specialty Coating
VOC Limitations and make changes to include the metric equivalent of
the VOC Content Limit. The addition of the VOC Content Limit (g/L)
column replicates Table 4-1. Specialty Coatings VOC Content Limit (g/L)
in the CTG guidance document. This specific revision provides no
substantive change and better serves the regulated community.
    Georgia also revises the allowable application techniques for
primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings under subparagraph 3 of the
Rule. First, GA EPD adds language clarifying that the

limits on application techniques apply only to ``spray applied''
methods. GA EPD also removes from the list all non-spray application
methods, such as brush, roll, and dip coating. As EPA explained in its
final rule amending the NESHAP applicable to aerospace facilities, non-
spray application techniques are properly exempted from the scope of
the rule because they do not cause VOC emissions. See 80 FR at 76155.
    GA EPD also adds to subparagraph 9 several activities that would be
exempted from Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). First, GA EPD exempts chemical
milling, as well as specific primers, topcoats, specialty coatings,
chemical milling maskants, strippers, and cleaning solvents that meet
the definition of non-VOC materials. EPA notes that these types of
coatings are not regulated by the CTG or the NESHAP.\2\ Moreover, GA
EPD retains requirements applicable to chemical milling maskants
(defined as coatings that are applied directly to aluminum components
to protect surface areas when chemical milling the component with a
Type I or Type II etchant), as well as maskants that must be used with
a combination of Type I or II etchants and any of the above types of
maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use and line sealer, and seal
coat).\3\ EPA has preliminarily concluded that these changes are
consistent with the CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Non-VOC materials are defined as a primer, topcoat,
specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, cleaning solvent or
stripper that contains no more than 1.0 percent by mass VOC in
Subparagraph 17 of this Rule.
    \3\ See EPA's action on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76152),
``National Emissions Standard for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities Risk and Technology Review''; see also Type I and Type II
etchant definitions in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Subparagraph 9(xiv), parts and assemblies not critical to the
structural integrity of the vehicle or flight performance would be
exempted from Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). This provision would exempt
from the RACT requirements the manufacture or rework of certain non-
critical airplane components, such as tray tables and seat panels. EPA
notes that the manufacture or rework of these non-critical components
are already subject to separate RACT requirements under Georgia's SIP-
approved Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(vvv)--VOC Emissions from Surface Coating
of Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products.\4\ Thus, EPA believes that
the exemption of these activities from Georgia's aerospace RACT rule
will not negatively impact VOC emissions. Accordingly, EPA is
preliminarily concluding that the exemption of these activities from
the aerospace-specific Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) is consistent with the
CTG and with RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 67 FR 72276, 72280 (Dec. 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) would provide an
exemption for primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that meet the
definition of ``classified national security information'' in
Subparagraph 17(xvii). This exemption is consistent with RACT, as well
as Executive Order 13526, ``Classified National Security Information,''
December 29, 2009, which outlines the different components and
restrictions applicable to certain classified materials.
    Finally, GA EPD adds an exemption for the rework of aircraft or
aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation
Administration design approval, or the holder's licensee, is not
actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components. As EPA
noted in its September 1, 1998 rulemaking amending 40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG, this exemption would apply to facilities that rework
aircraft or aircraft components whose original manufacturer has gone
out of business. See 63 FR 46526, 46528 (Sept. 1, 1998). EPA also noted
that this exemption only affects small numbers of aircraft, and that
compliance with VOC limits in these circumstances would involve
considerable expense. Id. For these reasons, EPA is preliminarily
concluding that this exemption is consistent with RACT.
    At subparagraph 10, GA EPD removes an exemption from specialty
coating requirements for low volume specialty coatings used under a
specified twelve-month average quantity. EPA believes the removal of
this exemption will be SIP strengthening and is, thus, proposing to
approve it.
    At Subparagraph 11, GA EPD removes the exemption for specialty
coatings and exempts spray applications of no more than 3.0 fluid
ounces of coating in a single application from a hand-held device with
a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces.
EPA believes that application of this quantity of coating will cause
minimal, if any, emissions.
    The revision would also exempt adhesives, sealants, maskants,
caulking materials, and inks under Subparagraph 11, as well as the
application of coatings that contain less than 0.17 pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating. EPA notes that adhesives, sealants, maskants,
caulking materials, and inks are not atomized in the same way as other
coatings during application and, therefore, are not high emitters of
VOCs during the application process. In addition, coatings that contain
less than 0.17 pounds of VOC per gallon (20 grams/liter) are low
category emitters.\5\ EPA also notes that activities qualifying for the
exemption must comply with the emission limits at subparagraphs 1 and
2--and are only exempted from certain operational limits in
Subparagraphs 3 and 4 (i.e., limits on application techniques,
requirement to comply with applicable operational procedures). In these
circumstances, EPA has preliminarily concluded that GA EPD's revisions
to the exemption at Subparagraph 11 are consistent with RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the CTG and GA's RACT rule regulate coatings
with significantly higher VOC concentrations at Table 4-1 of the CTG
and Table (kkk)-1 of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In subparagraph 15, GA EPD adds additional recordkeeping
requirements, as determined by the specific compliance option chosen at
Subparagraph 2. EPA believes the addition of these recordkeeping
requirements will be SIP strengthening it requires affected facilities
to retain certain records that are directly related to their chosen
method of compliance. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that these
requirements are consistent with the CTG's monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.
    GA EPD also makes minor administrative changes throughout the rule,
such as revising definitions at Subparagraph 17 and renumbering certain
sections and subparagraphs. In conclusion, EPA has preliminarily
determined the standard in the Georgia SIP that regulates aerospace and
rework facilities aligns with the applicable CTG and meets the RACT
requirements. Furthermore, EPA does not foresee any emissions increase
from this SIP revision. EPA is thus proposing to approve changes to
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk), as included in Georgia's June 6, 2019
submittal.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a proposed EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Georgia Regulation subparagraph 391-3-
1-.02(2)(kkk) entitled ``VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities,'' effective February 17, 2019, which incorporates
revisions to the emission standards for specialty coatings, allows for
annual purchase records of certain coatings, exempts two

additional application methods, and updates definitions.
    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).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Georgia SIP revision to Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(kkk), ``VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities,'' submitted on June 6, 2019. EPA has evaluated Georgia's
submittal and preliminarily determined that they meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the 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
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 26, 2019.
Blake M. Ashbee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-00327 Filed 1-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52040-52041]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-193-000.
    Applicants: JPM Capital Corporation, HA Wind I LLC, Morgan Stanley
Wind LLC.
    Description: Application of JPM Capital Corporation, et. al. for
Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 8/20/15.
    Accession Number: 20150820-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1509-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Concerning DNE
Dispatch Changes--ER15-1509-___to be effective 4/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1579-001.
    Applicants: 67RK 8me LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of 67RK 8me
LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1582-001; ER15-1914-001; ER15-762-002; ER15-
760-002; ER15-1896-001.
    Applicants: 65HK 8me LLC, 87RL 8me LLC, Sierra Solar Greenworks
LLC, Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch A LLC, Eden Solar LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of 67HK 8me
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2499-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-20 Mesquite Solar 2
LGIA to be effective 10/21/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2500-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Executed GIA & Executed
Distrib Serv Agmt Edom Hills to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2501-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-21_SA 2219 ATC-METC
Transmission IA Resubmittal of Original Agreement to be effective 7/1/
2010.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2502-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Settlement Modifications to
Bardstown and Nicholasville wholesale con to be effective 6/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2503-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Rate Schedule FERC
No. 244 (MT) to be effective 8/24/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2504-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Modifications to Rate
Schedule No. 144 ? SJPPA Restructuring Amendment to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2505-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA Desert
Stateline, LLC to be effective 8/22/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/21/15.
    Accession Number: 20150821-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21229 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28147]
[DOCID:fr15my08-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1751-DR]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1751-DR), dated March 26, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 26, 2008.

Desha County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance.)
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-10871 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


MEMORANDUM TO: E Docket OAR 2004 0506 FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Atmospheric Programs/ Stratospheric Protection Division RE: Calculations of amounts of Methyl Bromide requested for Critical Use Exemptions for California Strawberries for the 2005 Supplemental Request This memo concerns modifications made to the U. S. 2005 Supplemental Request for critical use exemptions ( CUEs) for methyl bromide within the strawberry fruit sector. Strawberry fruit was not originally nominated for the 2005 Supplemental Request. The Supplemental Request was submitted to the Ozone Secretariat on February 7, 2004, in conjunction with the annual U. S. nomination requesting exemptions for the 2006 use year.

After submission to the Ozone Secretariat, the nominations are reviewed by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP), advisory bodies to the Parties. After reviewing the MBTOC and TEAP recommendations, the Parties authorize amounts of methyl bromide for critical uses.

As part of the original request for the 2005 use year, submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in January 2003, the U. S. technical experts evaluated many factors concerning the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide. The same factors were considered in the annual U. S. request for the 2006 use year, and the 2005 supplemental request. The evaluation of the applicant's request, which resulted in the reduction of the total amount nominated, included consideration of issues such as the area afflicted with the key target pests, the extent of regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps), environmental concerns such as soil based restrictions due to potential groundwater contamination, and historic use rates.

For the 2005 use year, the U. S. requested 2,468,873 ( 2468.873 metric tonnes), kilograms of methyl bromide for strawberry fruit nationwide, with 1,816,637 kilograms ( 1816.637 MT) requested for California. In their " Critical Use Nominations: Supplementary Report" issued in October, 2003, MBTOC recommended that 2468.87 MT be authorized for the strawberry field industry in the U. S. ( p. 40). Prior to the issuance of this report, the MBTOC had asked for clarification on technical issues in the nomination, including the strawberry fruit sector. The U. S. Government responses were transmitted to the Ozone secretariat on August 27, 2003.

At their 15th annual meeting, held during November 2003 in Nairobi, Kenya, the Parties were unable to come to a decision about methyl bromide critical use exemption nominations. An Extraordinary Meeting was scheduled for March, 2004. As a result, MBTOC requested additional clarifications on the U. S. nomination on December 4, 2003, and responses were transmitted on January 30, 2004. In a second report titled " Critical Use Nominations: 2004 Supplementary Report," issued on February 14, 2004, the MBTOC reduced their recommendation for strawberry field crops in the U. S. to 1834 MT. This reduction was based an adjustments made that indicated that alternatives were technically feasible and that if the double ( 2X) Telone allowed under township cap restrictions continued in California, there would be scope for additional reduction ( p. 35).

However, after discussions with U. S. experts, MBTOC realized that the authorization for the Strawberry sector had been reduced by a greater amount ( 634 MT) than it should have been, and that the MBTOC had also assumed a transition to alternatives that was too rapid, based on recent data. Therefore, MBTOC informed the U. S. technical experts that they should request an additional supplemental amount to compensate for this reduction error, which focused on California.

However, at the time of issuance of the report, and of the Parties' subsequent authorizations at the Extraordinary Meeting in March, the 2004 Nomination ( for use year 2006), which included the 2005 supplemental request, had already been submitted. ( The 2nd annual nomination was submitted on February 7, 2003). Because the MBTOC recommendation for the reduction came after the submission of the 2005 supplemental request, the strawberry sector was not accounted for in the original supplemental request.

At the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties, held in March, 2004, the Parties approved 1225.935 MT for field grown strawberries in the U. S.

At the 16th Meeting of the Parties, which took place in Prague, Czech Republic, in November 2004, the Parties authorized the 2005 supplemental requests. Decision XVI/ 2, Annex 1A, authorized an additional 219,000 ( 219 MT) kilograms of methyl bromide for strawberry fruit in the United States, noting that additional time is required for an effective transition to alternatives ( p. 48).

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United States for critical uses in the strawberry fruit sector also incorporates minimum efficacious use rates, mixtures of methyl bromide with chloropicrin, the use of tarps to improve efficacy and reduce emissions, and also includes a small margin of error. More information on the development of the U. S. Nomination for Critical Use Exemptions for the 2005 use year is available on E Docket OAR 2003 0230, document # 104, in a memo titled " Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide from the United States of America."


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 27481-27482]
[DOCID:fr11my06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG06-37-000; EG06-38-000; FC06-1-000; FC06-2-000]

KGen Enterprise LLC; TransCanada Energy Ltd.; Orzunil I de
Electricidad Limitada; OrPower, 4 Inc.l; Ormat Momotomo Power Company;
Ormat Leyte Co., Ltd.; OrTitlan Limitada; Macquarie Bank Limited;
Macquarie International Infrastructure Fund Ltd.; Holleben Wind Farm
KG; Bippen Wind Farm KG; Diversified Utility and Energy Trust No. 1;
Diversified Utility and Energy Trust No. 2; MEIF Luxembourg Holdings
SA; Macquarie Power Income Fund; Global Infrastructure Fund; Korea
Power Investments Company, Ltd.; SK Energy Company, Ltd.; UWR GmbH and
Co KG; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

May 5, 2006.
    Take notice that during the month of April 2006, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the

Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7193 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5171-5173]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85125; File No. SR-Phlx-2019-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Options Regulatory Fee

February 13, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 1, 2019, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise its Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 6, Part D to amend the Phlx Options Regulatory Fee or ``ORF.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, Phlx assesses an ORF of $0.0045 per contract side. The
Exchange proposes to increase this ORF to $0.0050 per contract side as
of February 1, 2019. In light of recent market volumes, the Exchange is
proposing to increase the amount of ORF that will be collected by the
Exchange. The proposal would allow the Exchange to increase the per
contract amount of ORF in order to offset the Exchange anticipated
regulatory costs. The Exchange's proposed change to the ORF should
balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated
regulatory costs. The Exchange also proposes to delete obsolete
language in the rule text as described herein.

Collection of ORF
    Currently, Phlx assesses its ORF for each customer option
transaction that is either: (1) Executed by a member on Phlx; or (2)
cleared by a Phlx member at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
in the customer range,\3\ even if the transaction was executed by a
non-member of Phlx, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs.\4\ If the OCC clearing member is a Phlx member, ORF is assessed
and collected on all cleared customer contracts (after adjustment for
CMTA \5\); and (2) if the OCC clearing member is not a Phlx member, ORF
is collected only on the cleared customer contracts executed at Phlx,
taking into account any CMTA instructions which may result in
collecting the ORF from a non-member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Participants must record the appropriate account origin code
on all orders at the time of entry in order. The Exchange represents
that it has surveillances in place to verify that members mark
orders with the correct account origin code.
    \4\ The Exchange uses reports from OCC when assessing and
collecting the ORF.
    \5\ CMTA or Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of
``give-up'' whereby the position will be assigned to a specific
clearing firm at OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, if Broker A, a Phlx member, routes a customer
order to CBOE and the transaction executes on CBOE and clears in Broker
A's OCC Clearing account, ORF will be collected by Phlx from Broker A's
clearing account at OCC via direct debit. While this transaction was
executed on a market other than Phlx, it was cleared by a Phlx member
in the member's OCC clearing account in the customer range, therefore
there is a regulatory nexus between Phlx and the transaction. If Broker
A was not a Phlx member, then no ORF should be assessed and collected
because there is no nexus; the transaction did not execute on Phlx nor
was it cleared by a Phlx member.
    In the case where a member both executes a transaction and clears
the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected from that member.
In the case where a member executes a transaction and a different
member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to and collected
from the member who clears the transaction and not the member who
executes the transaction. In the case where a non-member executes a
transaction at an away market and a member clears the transaction, the
ORF is assessed to and collected from the member who clears the
transaction. In the case where a member executes a transaction on Phlx
and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the
member that executed the transaction on Phlx and collected from the
non-member who cleared the transaction. In the case where a member
executes a transaction at an away market and a non-member clears the
transaction, the ORF is not assessed to the member who executed the
transaction or collected from the non-member who cleared the
transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to
make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does
not allow the Exchange to identify the member executing the trade at an
away market.
ORF Revenue and Monitoring of ORF
    The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF
to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is
considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes
determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory
function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in
connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations,
examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking,
interpretive, and enforcement activities.
    The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when
combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover a
material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The
Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from
the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory
fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange
will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the
Commission.
Proposal
    The Exchange is proposing to increase the ORF from $0.0045 to
$0.0050 per contract side as of February 1, 2019. In light of recent
market volumes, the Exchange is proposing to increase the amount of ORF
that will be collected by the Exchange. The proposal would allow the
Exchange to increase the per contract amount of ORF in order to offset
the Exchange anticipated regulatory costs. The Exchange proposes to add
the following rule text to Options 7, Section 6, Part D, ``Phlx will
assess an Options Regulatory Fee of $0.0050 per contract side as of
February 1, 2019.''
    The Exchange regularly reviews its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in
combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed
regulatory costs. The Exchange believes this adjustment will permit the
Exchange to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, while not
exceeding regulatory costs.
    The Exchange notified members via an Options Trader Alert of the
proposed change to the ORF thirty (30) calendar days prior to the
proposed operative date, February 1, 2019.\6\ The Exchange believes
that the prior notification market participants will ensure market
participants are prepared to configure their systems to account
properly for the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Options Trader Alert #2018-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove the following rule text
from Options 7, Section 6, Part D, ``$0.0045 per contract side''. This
text is obsolete as it references a prior ORF rate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using its facility and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0045 to
$0.0050 per contract side as of February 1, 2019 is reasonable because
with this increase, the Exchange would recoup additional regulatory
revenue to offset anticipated regulatory costs. The Exchange believes
that the proposed adjustments noted herein will serve to balance the
Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the ORF from $0.0045 to
$0.0050 per contract side as of February 1, 2019 is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because assessing the ORF to each member for
options transactions cleared by OCC in the customer range where the
execution occurs on another exchange and is cleared by a Phlx member is
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
OCC collects the ORF

on behalf of Phlx from Exchange clearing members for all customer
transactions they clear or from non-members for all customer
transactions they clear that were executed on Phlx. The Exchange
believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to members based on
the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating
customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires
greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating
non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and
less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with
administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non-customer component (e.g., member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations,
financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and
enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate
revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other
regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's
regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that
regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the
Exchange's business side.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising
regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements
the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. This
proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market
burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports
regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is
obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected
from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines,
does not exceed regulatory costs.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii)
for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2019-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2019-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2019-01, and should be submitted on or
before March 13, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02730 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P