[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13574-13577]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06301]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82943; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6 Describing the Operation of
Orders With a Minimum Execution Quantity Instruction

March 23, 2018.
    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 March 16, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange
Rule 11.6 describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution
Quantity \5\ instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(h) for a complete description of the
operation of the Minimum Execution Quantity order instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 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 Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Exchange Rule 11.6
describing the operation of orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction by removing language that provided for the re-pricing of
incoming orders with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to avoid
an internally crossed book. As a result of this change, the Exchange
proposes to specify within the rule when an order with a Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction would not be eligible to trade to
prevent executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-
market price priority or that would cause a Non-Displayed \6\ order to
trade ahead of a Displayed \7\ order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Exchange Rule 11.6(c)(2) for a definition of the
Non-Displayed instruction.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(c)(1) for a definition of the
Displayed instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, a Minimum Execution Quantity is a non-displayed order that
enables a User \8\ to specify a minimum share amount at which the order
will execute.\9\ An order with a Minimum Execution Quantity will not
execute unless the volume of contra-side liquidity available to execute
against the order meets or exceeds the designated minimum size. By
default, an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction will
execute upon entry against a single order or multiple aggregated orders
simultaneously. The Exchange recently amended the operation of the
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to permit a User to
alternatively specify the order not execute against multiple aggregated
orders simultaneously and that the minimum quantity condition be
satisfied by each individual order resting on the EDGX Book.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \9\ A Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may only be added
to an order with a Non-Displayed instruction or a Time-in-Force of
Immediate-or-Cancel. See Exchange Rule 11.6(h).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81457 (August 22,
2017), 82 FR 40812 (August 28, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-34). This
functionality is pending deployment and the implementation date will
be announced via a trading notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also recently amended the operation of the Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction to re-price incoming orders with the
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction where that order may cross an
order posted on the EDGX Book.\11\ Specifically, where there is
insufficient size to satisfy an incoming order's minimum quantity
condition and that incoming order, if posted at its limit price, would
cross an order(s), whether displayed or non-displayed, resting on the
EDGX Book, the order with the minimum quantity condition would be re-
priced to and ranked at the Locking Price.\12\ This functionality has
not yet been implemented \13\ and the Exchange

now proposes to amend paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 to remove this re-
pricing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ ``Locking Price'' is defined as ``[t]he price at which an
order to buy (sell), that if displayed by the System on the EDGX
Book, either upon entry into the System, or upon return to the
System after being routed away, would be a Locking Quotation.'' See
Exchange Rule 11.6(f).
    \13\ See supra note 10. Exchange Rule 11.6(h) does not require
re-pricing where the order with a Minimum Execution Quantity is
resting on the EDGX Book. As such, an internally crossed book may
occur where the incoming order is of insufficient size to satisfy
the resting order's minimum quantity condition and that incoming
order, if posted at its limit price, would cross that order with a
minimum quantity condition resting on the EDGX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the above change, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 to describe when an order with a Minimum
Execution Quantity instruction will not be eligible to trade to prevent
executions from occurring that may be inconsistent with intra-market
price priority or would result in a Non-Displayed order trading ahead
of a same-priced, same-side Displayed order.\14\ The Exchange would not
permit an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction that
crosses other Displayed or Non-Displayed orders on the EDGX Book to
trade at prices that are worse than the price of such contra-side
orders. The Exchange would also not permit a resting order with a
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to trade at a price equal to a
contra-side Displayed order. This proposal is based on recently adopted
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Exchange Rule 11.9(a) states that orders on the EDGX Book
are ranked and maintained by the Exchange according to price-time
priority. Exchange Rule 11.9(a) further prohibits a Non-Displayed
order from trading ahead of a same-side, same-priced Displayed
order. This proposed rule change adds language to Exchange Rule
11.6(h) to clarify this priority scheme during an internally crossed
market.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82504 (January 16,
2018), 83 FR 3038 (January 22, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-01) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7.31-E Relating to Mid-Point Liquidity Orders and the
Minimum Trade Size Modifier and Rule 7.36-E To Add a Definition of
``Aggressing Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 would state that an order to buy (sell)
with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction that is ranked in the
EDGX Book will not be eligible to trade: (i) At a price equal to or
above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are Displayed and that have a
ranked price equal to or below (above) the price of such order with a
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction; or (ii) at a price above
(below) any sell (buy) order that is Non-Displayed and has a ranked
price below (above) the price of such order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity instruction.\16\ However, an order with a Minimum Execution
Quantity instruction that crosses an order on EDGX Book may execute at
a price less aggressive than its ranked price against an incoming order
so long as such execution is consistent with the above restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to
buy (sell) may execute at a price above (below) any sell (buy) order
that is Non-Displayed and has a ranked price below (above) the price
of such order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction if that
Non-Displayed order itself included a Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction that prevented it from executing. See infra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples describe the proposed operation of an order
with a Minimum Execution Quantity during an internally crossed market.
This first example addresses intra-market priority amongst an order
with a Minimum Execution Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders in an
internally crossed market as well as when an execution may occur at
prices less aggressive than the resting order's ranked price. Assume
the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.16. A Non-Displayed order to sell 50 shares
at $10.12 is resting on the EDGX Book (``Order A''). A Non-Displayed
order to sell 25 shares at $10.11 is also resting on the EDGX Book
(``Order B''). The Exchange receives a MidPoint Peg \17\ order to buy
at $10.14 with a minimum quantity condition to execute against a single
order of 100 shares (``Order C''). Because Order C's minimum quantity
condition cannot be met, Order C will not trade with Orders A or B and
will be posted and ranked on the EDGX Book at $10.13, the midpoint of
the NBBO. The Exchange now has a Non-Displayed order crossing both Non-
Displayed orders on the EDGX Book. If the Exchange then receives a Non-
Displayed order to sell for 100 shares at $10.11 (``Order D''),\18\
although Order D would be marketable against Order C at $10.13, it
would not trade at $10.13 because it is above the price of all resting
sell orders. Order D will instead execute against Order C at $10.11,
receiving price improvement relative to the midpoint of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(2).
    \18\ On NYSE Arca, Order D will be posted to the NYSE Arca book
at $10.11 and not execute against Order C at $10.13. See supra note
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This second example addresses intra-market priority amongst
Displayed orders, Non-Displayed orders with a Minimum Execution
Quantity and other Non-Displayed orders. The Exchange notes that the
below behavior is not unique to an internally crossed market as the
Exchange's priority rule, 11.9(a), currently prohibits Non-Displayed
orders, including Non-Displayed orders with a Minimum Execution
Quantity, from trading ahead of same-priced, same-side Displayed
orders. Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.04. A Non-Displayed order to
buy 500 shares at $10.00 is resting on the EDGX Book (``Order A''). A
Displayed order to buy 100 shares at $10.00 is then entered and posted
to the EDGX Book (``Order B''). The Exchange receives a Non-Displayed
order to sell 600 shares at $10.00 with a minimum quantity condition to
execute against a single order of 500 shares (``Order C''). Although
Order A satisfies Order C's minimum quantity condition and has time
priority ahead of Order B, no execution occurs because Order B is a
Displayed order and has execution priority over Order A, a Non-
Displayed order. Order C does not execute against Order B because Order
B does not satisfy Order C's minimum quantity condition. Order C is
then posted to the EDGX Book at $10.00, non-displayed.
    The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to paragraph (h)
of Exchange Rule 11.6. The rule currently states that an order with the
Minimum Execution Quantity instruction cedes execution priority when it
would lock an order against which it would otherwise execute if it were
not for the minimum execution size restriction.\19\ The Exchange now
proposes to add additional language to the rule to clarify when a
resting Non-Displayed order may cede execution priority to a subsequent
arriving same-side order. As amended, paragraph (h) of Rule 11.6 would
state that if a resting Non-Displayed sell (buy) order did not meet the
minimum quantity condition of a same-priced resting order to buy (sell)
with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction, a subsequently arriving
sell (buy) order that meets the minimum quantity condition will trade
ahead of such resting Non-Displayed sell (buy) order at that price. For
example, assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and no orders are resting
on the EDGX Book. A Non-Displayed order to buy 700 shares at $10.10
with a minimum quantity condition to execute against a single order of
500 shares is resting on the EDGX Book (Order A). A Non-Displayed order
to sell 100 shares at $10.10 is then entered and posted to the EDGX
Book (Order B). Order B does not execute against Order A because Order
B does not satisfy Order A's single minimum quantity condition of 500
shares. As a result, Order B is posted to the EDGX Book at $10.10,
creating an internally locked book. An order to sell 500 shares at
$10.10 is then entered and executes against Order A at $10.10 for 500
shares because the incoming order is of

sufficient size to satisfy Order A's minimum quantity condition of 500
shares. This clarification is also based on recently adopted NYSE Arca
Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(ii).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange proposes to amend this provision to clarify
that an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction would
cede execution priority when it would also cross an order against
which it would otherwise execute if it were not for the minimum
execution size restriction.
    \20\ Supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to clarify that an incoming order
with a Minimum Execution Quantity would be canceled where, if posted,
it would cross the displayed price of an order on the EDGX Book.\21\
Conversely, an incoming order with a Minimum Execution Quantity
instruction would be posted to the EDGX Book where it would not cross
the displayed price of a resting contra-side order. For example, an
order to buy at $11.00 with a minimum quantity condition of 500 shares
is entered (Order A) and there is a Displayed order resting on the EDGX
Book to sell 200 shares at $10.99 (Order B). Order A would be cancelled
because it crosses the displayed price of Order B and Order B does not
contain sufficient size to satisfy Order A's minimum quantity condition
of 500 shares. However, should Order A be priced at $10.99, it would
not be cancelled and would be posted to the EDGX Book, resulting in an
internally locked market. Order A would not be executable at that price
because it is priced equal to a contra-side Displayed order. An
internally crossed market may subsequently occur should an order to
sell priced more aggressively than Order A be entered but not be of
sufficient size to satisfy Order A's minimum quantity condition of 500
shares (e.g., an order to sell 100 shares at $10.98) and posted to the
EDGX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ An order with a Minimum Execution Quantity will be repriced
in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) where it would cross a
protected quote displayed on an away market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because it would ensure that orders
with a Minimum Quantity instruction do not trade through Displayed
orders or violate intra-market price priority. Specifically, the
proposed rule change would protect Displayed orders by preventing an
order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction from executing
where it is locked by a contra-side Displayed order. The proposed rule
change protects intra-market price priority by preventing a resting
order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction from executing
where it is crossed by either a Displayed or Non-Displayed order on the
EDGX Book. The proposed clarifications remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because they provide additional specificity regarding the
operation of an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction,
thereby avoiding potential investor confusion. In particular, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable for a resting Non-Displayed order to
cede execution priority to a subsequent arriving same-side order where
that order is of sufficient size to satisfy a resting contra-side
order's minimum quantity condition because doing so facilitates
executions in accordance with the terms and conditions of each order.
The proposed rule change is also substantially similar to a proposed
rule change recently submitted by NYSE Arca for immediate effectiveness
and published by the Commission.\24\ The only differences between the
proposed rule change and that of NYSE Arca is that: (i) NYSE Arca does
not cancel a minimum quantity order that would cross a displayed order
on the NYSE Arca book; and (ii) NYSE Arca will not execute resting
orders at prices less aggressive than their limit prices in crossed
markets. The Exchange believes that these differences are immaterial
because they are designed to reduce the occurrences of internally
crossed markets and facilitate executions that may not otherwise occur.
These differences will also continue to ensure that executions occur in
accordance with intra-market price priority on the Exchange while
accounting for the differences in functionality and order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ See supra notes 15 and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. On
the contrary, the proposed rule change is not designed to address any
competitive issues because it is intended to provide clarity regarding
the operation of orders with a Minimum Quantity instruction and when
such orders are eligible to trade and not trade through Displayed
orders or violate intra-market price priority.

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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 \25\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\26\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-008. 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 Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-008, and should be
submitted on or before April 19, 2018.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06301 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33296-33299]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14809]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86323; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Update Its Rules Related to Complex Orders and Trading
Halts

    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 June 24, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
update its rules related to complex orders and trading halts. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change updates the Exchange's trading halt
procedures as they relate to complex orders. The Exchange recently
adopted a rule change (Rule 21.7) to eliminate the distinction between
how the opening auction process applies to a Member's simple orders
following a Regulatory Halt and a non-Regulatory Halt.\5\ This change
will be implemented on June 27, 2019 \6\ and provides that, for the
opening auction process following any trading halt, the System queues a
User's orders and quotes resting on the book at the time of the trading
halt for participation in the opening rotation following the trading
halt, unless the User entered instructions to cancels its resting
orders and quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85988 (May 31,
2019), 84 FR 26492 (June 6, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 21.7
Concerning the Opening Auction Process) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-033). The
changes in SR-CboeEDGX-2019-033 are currently effective but not yet
operative; however, the proposed rule text in this rule filing
assumes operativeness of those effective changes. The Exchange notes
that the distinction between the two trading halts was made
throughout its rules in connection with Regulatory Halts under the
Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the
``Plan''). During a Regulatory Halt an underlying security has
halted trading across the industry, and during a non-Regulatory Halt
the primary exchange has experienced a technical issue but the
underlying security continues to trade on other equities platforms.
However, the Exchange determined that there would be a Queuing
Period following a non-Regulatory Halt, like that of a Regulatory
Halt, in order eliminate potential investor confusion regarding how
the System will handle orders and quotes in the event of any trading
halt. This is consistent with the Plan.
    \6\ See Exchange Notice No. C2019061200 (June 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to update the Complex Order Book
(``COB'') re-opening process following a trading halt under Rule 21.20
to align with the proposed changes to the opening auction process
following a halt for simple orders. Currently, Rule 21.20(c)(2)(A)
provides that any complex orders designated for a re-opening following
a halt will be queued until the halt has ended, at which time they will
be eligible to be executed in the Opening Process for the COB. The
Exchange now proposes to update this process to mirror that of the
process for simple orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 21.20(c)(2)(A) to state that the System queues a Member's open
complex orders during a halt, unless the Member entered instructions to
cancel its open complex orders upon a halt, until the halt has ended,
at which time they will be eligible to be executed in the Opening
Process for the COB. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make
similar changes to Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 21.20, which
currently states that if a trading halt exists for the underlying
security or a component of a complex strategy, trading in the complex
strategy will be suspended and a Member's complex orders will be
cancelled unless a Member has instructed the Exchange not to cancel its
orders. The Exchange proposes to amend the language, similar to that of
proposed Rule 21.20(c)(2)(A), to state that the System queues a
Member's open complex orders during a halt, unless the Member entered
instructions to cancel its open complex orders upon a halt, for
participation in the re-opening of the COB. The Exchange notes that the
proposed change to Rule 21.20 and its Interpretation and Policy .05
will align this rule with the trading halt process to be implemented
for simple orders on June 27, 2019. The Exchange further notes that the
proposed change is substantially similar to the language of its
affiliated exchange's, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), corresponding
rule for trading halts in connection with complex orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See C2 Rule 6.13(k). The Exchange notes that C2 recently
proposed changes to this rule to eliminate the distinction between
the re-opening process following a Regulatory and non-Regulatory
Trading Halt. Therefore, following any trading halt, a complex order
will be handled in the manner in which it is currently handled for a
Regulatory Trading Halt: The System queues a User's open complex
orders, unless the User entered instructions to cancel its open
complex orders upon a halt, for participation in the re-opening of
the COB. See SR-C2-2019-016 (June 17, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposed change will provide
Members with the same ability to decide how their resting complex
orders should be handled in the event of a trading halt as they will
have for their simple orders in this event. The Exchange also believes
this proposed update will eliminate potential investor confusion
regarding how the System will handle complex orders as compared to
simple orders upon implementation of the changes to the trading halt
process for simple orders on June 27, 2019, as well as bolster
understanding of the rules and functionality following trading halts
between the Exchange and its affiliated exchange, C2, for those
participating across both exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. \8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to harmonize the process for a Member's

complex orders with that of a Member's simple orders following a
trading halt will protect investors by eliminating potential confusion
regarding how the System will handle their complex orders as compared
to their simple orders following any trading halt. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change will serve to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system by providing Members with the same ability to decide how
their open (i.e., resting) complex orders a should be handled in the
event of a trading halt, as they will have for their simple orders in
this event beginning on June 27, 2019. Also, as stated above, the
Exchange notes that the proposed change is substantively the same as
the complex order trading halt rule of its affiliated exchange, C2.\11\
As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
serve to protect investors by providing similar trading halt rules for
complex orders between the two affiliated exchanges, thereby bolstering
understanding of the affiliated exchanges' rules and functionality for
those participating across both exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All
Members will have the same flexibility regarding how the System will
handle their complex orders during a trading halt. If a Member wants
its complex orders to be handled in the manner they are today, that
Member may instruct the Exchange to do so. The proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
proposed rule change is not intended as a competitive change, but
rather to provide Members with the same flexibility with respect to the
handling of their complex orders during a trading halt as they will
have for their simple orders, and to provide consistent trading halt
procedures under the Exchange's rules.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative 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 \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to implement this
proposed rule change simultaneously with the rule change to eliminate
the trading halt distinctions between how the opening auction process
following a halt applies to a Member's simple orders, which the
Exchange intends to implement on June 27, 2019. Therefore, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-041. 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 Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-041 and should
be submitted on or before August 2, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: July 8, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14809 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67501-67502]
[DOCID:fr14no08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-420-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Hubline/East to
West Project

November 7, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) has prepared the draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft
EIS) to address Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC's (Algonquin) proposed
expansion of its natural gas pipeline system in the above-referenced
docket. The HubLine/East to West Project (E2W Project or Project) would
be located in various counties in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, and New Jersey.
    The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We \1\ have concluded that if
the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations, Algonquin's proposed mitigation, and our
additional mitigation measures, it would have limited adverse
environmental impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy
Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIS. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are cooperating agencies. A cooperating agency
has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
environmental impacts involved with the proposal and is involved in the
NEPA analysis.
    The E2W Project would provide 746,500 dekatherms per day of east to
west natural gas transportation service for delivery to high growth
markets in the Northeast. The Project would increase the diversity of
supply by accessing natural gas from liquefied natural gas projects
recently constructed or under construction offshore of Massachusetts
and in New Brunswick, Canada and add natural gas supply reliability and
security to Algonquin's existing system by eliminating current delivery
bottlenecks.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following facilities proposed by
Algonquin:
     I-10 Extension--construction of approximately 12.9 miles
of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts;
     Q-1 System Replacement--installation of approximately 7.5
miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline that would replace a segment of an
existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts;
     E-3 System Replacement--installation of approximately 11.0
miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline that would replace a segment of an
existing 6- and 4-inch-diameter pipeline in New London County,
Connecticut;
     Rehoboth Compressor Station--a new 10,310-horsepower
compressor station in Bristol County, Massachusetts;
     Modifications to three existing compressor stations to
accommodate bidirectional flow along Algonquin's system including:
     [cir] Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode
Island;
     [cir] Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County,
Connecticut; and
     [cir] Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, New Jersey;
     Aboveground over-pressure protection regulation at two
existing meter stations (Fore River and Sharon Meter Stations) and at
two new regulator stations (beginning and end of the Q-1 System
Replacement) along the Algonquin system in Massachusetts; and
     Installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities including
four mainline valves, two taps, and two remote blow-off valves; five
pig \2\ launchers; and three pig receivers in Massachusetts and
Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS is encouraged to do
so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the
proposal, it is important that your comments be received before
December 29, 2008. Please carefully follow the instructions below so
that your comments are properly recorded.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number (CP08-420-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ-11.3.

Mail your comments promptly, so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 29, 2008.
    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite
you to attend the public comment meetings we will conduct in the
Project area. Both meetings will begin at 7 p.m. (Est), and are
scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, December 10, 2008.  Stoughton High School Cafeteria, 232
                                Pearl Street, Stoughton, MA 02072, (781)
                                344-7001
Thursday, December 11, 2008..  Norwich City Hall Council Chambers, 100
                                Broadway, Norwich, CT 06360 (860) 823-
                                3732.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These public meetings will be posted on the FERC's calendar located
at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested groups
and individuals are encouraged to attend and present written or oral
comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be
prepared.
    After the comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are
investigated, and necessary modifications are made to the draft EIS, a
final EIS will be published and distributed. The final EIS will contain
our responses to timely comments filed on the draft EIS that are
related to environmental issues.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission and the cooperating
agencies but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (Title 18 CFR Part 385.214). Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's
decision. Further instructions for becoming an intervenor are included
in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov). You do not need intervenor status to have
your comments considered.
    The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Regulatory Energy Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First St.,
NE.; Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies are available from the FERC's Public
Reference Room identified above. These copies may be requested in hard
copy or as .pdf files on a CD that can be read by a computer with a CD-
ROM drive. The draft EIS is also available for viewing on the FERC
Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. In addition, copies of the
document have been mailed to federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes and regional
organizations; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors in the
FERC's proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e., affected
landowners, other interested individuals, and environmental and public
interest groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain on the
mailing list). All parties on the mailing list were sent a CD of the
draft EIS. A hard copy was also mailed to those who specifically
requested one. Hard copies of the draft EIS can be viewed at the
libraries in the Project area that are listed in Appendix B of the
draft EIS.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and
enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket
Number field (i.e., CP08-420). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription
link on the FERC Internet Web site.
    Information concerning the involvement of the COE is available from
Ted Lento at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information concerning the involvement of
the EPA is available from Timothy Timmermann at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27069 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MCPB TASK FORCE

C.M. Schofield, EPA Liaison

8325 Old Deer Trail

Raleigh, North Carolina  27615

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Email:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
February 6. 2009

Mr. James Parker

Special Review & Reregistration Division (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Room S-4900, One Potomac Yard

2777 South Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA  22202-4501

 RE:	MCPB Data Call-In Response

	Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study

Data Requirement 835.6100

Dear Mr. Parker:

This letter is to request a change in the location of the MCPB
Terrestrial Field Dissipation study (guideline 835.6100) agreed to in a
12 March 2008 conference call with EPA.1  During that conference call
the counties of  either Renville, Brown or Olmsted, Minnesota were
identified as acceptable sites for the dissipation study.  While there
were no qualified research facilities in those counties capable of
conducting GLP studies, arrangements were made with a Paynesville, MN
based researcher to travel off-site to conduct the study in Renville
County.  These arrangements were not acceptable and as identified in a
24 September 2008 letter to you the study was terminated due to
contamination observed in samples collected at Day 0.  Subsequent to
this letter, a one-year extension to submit the data was granted until
March 6, 2010 as noted in a letter from EPA dated 14 October 2008.

In an attempt to avoid similar problems with the repeat study the MCPB
Task Force asked Grayson Research, LLC to identify appropriate
facilities capable of conducting the Terrestrial Field Dissipation
study.  Grayson Research advised us that based on their experience and
the lack of qualified cooperators in Minnesota for dissipation work we
should consider moving the study to another pea production area having
similar soils and growing conditions.  While they identified several GLP
research facilities in North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin, the two
best suited for dissipation work were in Walworth and Dane Counties,
Wisconsin.

Recent production statistics indicate Wisconsin is ranked third
nationally, behind Washington (#1) and Minnesota (#2), for green peas
grown for processing.  The pea growing areas of Wisconsin are
predominantly in the Central, East Centra1 and South Central areas of
the state with the relative rank of individual counties having more to
do with location of processing facilities than any cultural
characteristic.  While either research facility in Walworth or Dane
Counties could conduct the study, Grayson Research indicated that based
on their experience with the two cooperators they would recommend the
Walworth County facility.

In order to further evaluate the Walworth County facility, we asked for
soil characterization information for comparison to the Renville County,
MN study site agreed to by EPA.  Soil characterization data from last
year’s trial shows a clay loam soil to 18” with 3.3%, 2.7% and 2% in
the 0-6, 6-12” and 12-18” depths, respectively.  The soil below the
18” depth was characterized as a clay soil.  Soil characterization
data from the proposed trial site in Walworth County, WI shows a loam
soil through 24” with 2.4%, 1.9% and 1.0% in the 0-6, 6-12” and
12-18” depths, respectively.  The soil below the 24” depth is a clay
loam soil.  According to the extension service in Wisconsin, the Radford
Silt Loam (NRCS soils map classification for the proposed trial site) is
typical of pea production in the area.  Various production guides for
commercial pea production in Wisconsin, North Dakota and Minnesota
indicate peas are well adapted to most soil types, with mid-range loamy
soils preferred over more sandy or clay soils, as the roots don’t
penetrate deeply (sands don’t hold the water) and peas are sensitive
to waterlogged soils (clay soils).  The pH of the Walworth site is 6.6,
close to the optimal soil pH (5.5 – 6.5) for pea production.

Based on the evaluation of Grayson Research, we would propose changing
the site location from Renville County, MN to Walworth County, WI.  This
will allow us to work with a conscientious Field Investigator working on
a home facility in a commercial pea production area.  If this change in
the location of the study is acceptable, please advise me on or before
March 1, 2009 so we can make final arrangements with the field
cooperator.  If this is not acceptable, and EPA targeted other specific
characteristics in their site recommendations, please notify me as soon
as possible since we would have to identify an alternate site as quickly
as possible in order to make the March 6, 2010 submission deadline.

If you have questions or need further information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

C.M. Schofield

EPA Liaison

MCPB Task Force

CMS/ama

1 Parties participating in the conference call were James Parker, Kelly
White-Sherman, Jim Hetrick and Thy Nguyen for EPA with Mike Schofield
and Bill Mahlburg representing the MCPB Task Force.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  2     FILENAME \p
F:\DATA\Word\MCPBTF\2009 correspondence\020609 parker change in
dissipation site location.doc


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63764-63765]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-11-000.
    Applicants: Greeley Energy Facility, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Greeley Energy
Facility, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5592.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-6-000.
    Applicants: Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-7-000.
    Applicants: Los Vientos Windpower IV, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale
Generator of Los Vientos Windpower IV, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5387.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-8-000.
    Applicants: Los Vientos Windpower V, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification as an Exempt Wholesale Generator of
Los Vientos Windpower V, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5443.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-9-000.
    Applicants: Yuma Cogeneration Associates.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Yuma Cogeneration Associates.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5695.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-518-005.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order 676-H Compliance Filing
(Revised) to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5656.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2358-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: eTariff Migration Compliance Filing
for Pending Record in DWR SA 275 (App C) to be effective 7/23/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2501-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2015-10-13_SA 2219 ATC-METC
Transmission IA Resubmittal Amendment to be effective 7/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5670.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2541-001.
    Applicants: Burgess Capital LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised Filing to be effective 10/
13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5385
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-47-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12_New Ulm-UnEXE
T-L_0.0.0--Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-48-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12-PSC-WAPA-Wtrflw
Agrmt-380-0.0.0--Filing to be effective 12/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-49-000
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12_MMPA Tm-1
Removal-3_0.2.0--Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-50-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-12-PSC-TSGT-USA-

379-0.0.0--Filing to be effective--9/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-51-000.
    Applicants: Solar Star California XIX, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Filing to be effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5510.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-52-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Commonwealth Edison
Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd revises Attachment
H-13 to add certain wholesale distribution charges to be effective 10/
14/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5514.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-53-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA North
Rosamond Solar, LLC to be effective 10/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5523.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-55-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA Willow
Springs Solar, LLC to be effective 10/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5524.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-56-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-10-13_Hurdle Rate
Removal Filing to be effective 2/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5526.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-60-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4262; Queue X3-015 (ISA) to be effective 9/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5536.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-61-000.
    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to
be effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5543.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-62-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised
Interconnection Service Agreement No. 3340, Queue No. AA2-052 to be
effective 9/11/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5554.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-63-000.
    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to
be effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5557.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-64-000.
    Applicants: Tallbear Seville LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Tariff and Application to
be effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5563.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-65-000.
    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SFA and SLA Filing to be
effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5584.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-66-000.
    Applicants: Seville Solar Two, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence in SFA to be
effective 10/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5587.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-67-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015 PBOP Filing to be
effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5680.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-68-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PBOP 2015 Filing to be
effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20151013-5684.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/15.

    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: October 13, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26705 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7690-7692]
[DOCID:fr11fe08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0150; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-325-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 767 series
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection for
missing, damaged, or incorrectly installed parts in the separation link
assembly on the deployment bar of the emergency escape system on the
entry or service door, and installation of new parts if necessary. This
proposed AD would require replacing the separation link assembly on the
applicable entry and service doors with an improved separation link
assembly, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD would also remove certain airplanes from
the applicability. This proposed AD results from reports that entry and
service doors did not open fully during deployment of emergency escape
slides, and additional reports of missing snap rings. We are proposing
this AD to prevent failure of an entry or service door to open fully in
the event of an emergency evacuation, which could impede exit from the
airplane. This condition could result in injury to passengers or
crewmembers.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0150;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-325-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will

consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 21, 2001, we issued AD-2001-26-19, amendment 39-12585
(67 FR 265, January 3, 2002, for certain Boeing Model 767 series
airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection for missing, damaged,
or incorrectly installed parts in the separation link assembly on the
deployment bar of the emergency escape system on the entry or service
door, and installation of new parts if necessary. That AD resulted from
reports that entry and service doors did not open fully during
deployment of emergency escape slides on several Boeing Model 767
series airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent failure of an entry or
service door to open fully in the event of an emergency evacuation,
which could impede exit from the airplane. This condition could result
in injury to passengers or crewmembers.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD-2001-26-19, we have received additional reports
of missing snap rings, which are used for securing the separation link
assembly. Investigation revealed that the snap rings fell off after
they were possibly damaged during the inspection of the separation link
assembly as required by paragraph (a) of AD-2001-26-19. As a result,
the manufacturer has developed a new corrective action that replaces
the snap rings with nuts and washers. Therefore, we have determined
that the existing separation link assembly must be secured with a nut
and washer instead of a snap ring to adequately address the unsafe
condition. This replacement would eliminate the need for inspecting the
separation link assembly. We have also removed Model 767-300F series
airplanes from the applicability of this proposed AD, since those
airplanes are not equipped with the affected escape slides.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-
0428, dated August 23, 2007, for Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series
airplanes. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the
separation link assembly having a snap ring with an improved separation
link assembly secured with a nut and washer, on the deployment bar of
the emergency escape system on the applicable entry and service doors.
The service bulletin also describes procedures for doing related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The related
investigative actions include doing a general visual inspection of the
separation link housing assembly for worn primer around the assembly,
and inspecting the spring in the separation link housing to determine
the spring tolerance. The corrective action includes applying two coats
of a certain primer if the separation link housing assembly is worn,
and replacing any spring that does not fall within a certain tolerance
with a new spring. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD-2001-26-19. This proposed AD would require
accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously. This proposed AD would also remove Model 767-300F
series airplanes from the applicability.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,225 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 355 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The new proposed actions would take up to about 6 work
hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.
Required parts would cost up to about $10,671 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the new actions specified in this
proposed AD for U.S. operators is $3,958,605, or $11,151 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-12585 (67 FR 265, January 3, 2002) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

?>Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0150; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
325-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 27,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2001-26-19.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0428, dated August
23, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports that entry and service doors
did not open fully during deployment of emergency escape slides, and
additional reports of missing snap rings. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of an entry or service door to open fully in the
event of an emergency evacuation, which could impede exit from the
airplane. This condition could result in injury to passengers or
crewmembers.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Replacement

    (f) Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the separation link assembly on the deployment bar of the
emergency escape system on all the applicable entry and service
doors with an improved separation link assembly, and do all the
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by
accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-25-0428, dated August 23, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 08-571 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Martha Smith, OAQPS/SPPD/NRCG

FROM:	David Hendricks, EC/R Inc.

DATE:		February 22, 2007

SUBJECT:	Summary of the February 5, 2007 Metal Furniture Coating CTG
Stakeholder Meeting

	The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the discussion that took
place during the stakeholder meeting for the metal furniture coating CTG
project held on February 5, 2007 at the EPA campus in Research Triangle
Park, NC.  The meeting objectives were to inform the stakeholders of the
current project status, provide a summary of why EPA is developing this
CTG, and present possible regulatory options.  The meeting presentation
slides for the meeting, including the agenda, are provided in Attachment
1.

MEETING PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mr. Bruce Moore, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Ms. Martha Smith, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resource and Commerce Group

Ms. Amy Branning, Office of General Counsel

EC/R Inc.

Mr. David Hendricks

Industry Representatives

Mr. Bill Bulkowski, Steelcase Inc.

Mr. Scott Lesnet, HNI Corp.

Mr. Brad Miller, Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer’s
Association

Mr. Bill Perdue, American Home Furnishings Alliance

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

	Ms. Smith opened the meeting by welcoming all of the participants and
allowing each participant to provide a brief introduction.  She then
reviewed the meeting objectives and the agenda.

	Mr. Moore then provided an overview of why EPA is developing control
techniques guidelines (CTG).  He began by reviewing the requirements of
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  Under section 183(e), EPA
conducted a study of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the
use of consumer and commercial products to assess their potential to
contribute to levels of ozone that violate the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish criteria for
regulating VOC emissions from these products.  The EPA then listed for
regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80
percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from
consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for
ozone.

	From that exercise, the Metal Furniture Coatings category was
identified for regulation, which requires the EPA to promulgate best
available controls (BAC) for this category of consumer products.
However, section 183(e)(C) provides that EPA may issue CTG based on
reasonable available control technology (RACT) in lieu of regulations if
EPA determines that such guidance will be substantially as effective as
regulations in reducing emissions of VOC.

	Mr. Moore pointed out the CTG currently under development is not a
Federal regulation.  Rather, it is a guidance document to be used by
States to develop their own regulations based on the CTG to meet state
implementation plan (SIP) requirements for nonattainment areas.

	Ms. Smith then summarized the work EPA has completed on this project.
First, EPA examined regulations that currently affect the metal
furniture coating industry.  Federal regulations include the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for metal
furniture surface coating, the new source performance standard (NSPS)
for surface coating of metal furniture, and a previous CTG for surface
coating of metal furniture.  Both the NSPS and CTG are directed at VOC
emissions, while the NESHAP is directed at emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP).  However, the NESHAP will have a co-benefit of
reducing VOC emissions as well.

	The VOC rules for all 50 States were also examined.  The EPA found that
the majority of State rules followed the existing CTG limits, and two
states had limits more strict than the existing CTG limits.

	Ms. Smith explained that the CTG under development must be based on
RACT.  The EPA has defined RACT as “the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.”  Because of these factors,
RACT will tend to change over time.  Therefore, EPA is assessing the
current level of control imposed by Federal and State regulations as
part of the RACT determination and is developing regulatory options
based on these regulations.

	Ms. Smith provided the stakeholders with the project schedule.  The EPA
plans to finalize the CTG document and publish a final Federal Register
notice on the determination that the CTG is at least as effective as a
national rule no later than September 30, 2007.  Mr. Moore clarified
that EPA is not proposing or promulgating a CTG.  The Federal Register
notice will be for the determination.  However, the notice for the
proposed determination will also request comment on the draft CTG.

	Mr. Bulkowski asked if the rules that the States develop based on the
CTG will apply only in ozone nonattainment areas.  Mr. Moore responded
that States are required to apply RACT to nonattainment areas regardless
of whether there is an applicable CTG.  The CTG provides guidance to the
States for developing these RACT rules, but the States are free to apply
their rules to any part of the State they deem appropriate.

	Mr. Bulkowski then asked if EPA will publish a finding, based on
economic and technical feasibility, that the draft CTG represents RACT.
Mr. Moore said that EPA will publish a finding of what we have defined
as RACT, but this will not include an economic or technical analysis.
Because of the short time frame imposed on EPA to complete this CTG, an
in-depth study of cost and technical feasibility is not practical.  Mr.
Lesnet asked if this means that EPA is basing their decisions on a
literature review.  Mr. Moore replied that to a large extent that is
true, but we are also trying to involve stakeholders as early in the
process as possible to provide relevant information.

	Mr. Lesnet asked if the scope of the CTG will be limited to just
coatings, or will other operations be included such as how affected
source is defined in the NESHAP.  Mr. Moore responded that since the
industry has been looking at tracking and controlling emissions on a
facility-wide basis in response to the NESHAP, then it would make sense
to continue that basis in the CTG to maintain consistency.  Mr.
Hendricks pointed out that in the development of the NESHAP, EPA
developed a VOC emission limit that was equivalent to a facility
complying with the HAP emission limit of the NESHAP.  Mr. Moore
suggested that it would be helpful if the industry would comment on
whether the VOC limit developed during the NESHAP project is valid based
on coatings and solvents currently used by the industry.  Mr. Lesnet
expressed concern about whether a VOC limit developed using data from
large sources is transferable to smaller sources that are not subject to
the NESHAP.

	Mr. Perdue stated that the amount of coatings used in the production of
home furniture is much smaller than used for office equipment.  Thus,
the CTG is less critical to the home furniture segment of the industry.
Additionally, much of the metal coating performed for the home furniture
segment falls under the miscellaneous metal parts and products source
category.  Mr. Perdue believed that despite the lower coating usage, the
VOC and HAP content data of the coatings used should be readily
available.

	Mr. Moore asked the industry representatives whether the VOC content of
metal furniture coatings has increased in response to the NESHAP HAP
limits.  Mr. Bulkowski replied that in certain situations the VOC
content has gone up, but in general VOC emissions have decreased because
of increased use of high solids and powder coatings.  Mr. Lesnet added
that there has been a switch to exempt VOC solvents in extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, but overall solvent content is generally the same.

ATTACHMENT  1

MEETING PRESENTATION SLIDES

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14113-14114]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5954]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64065; File No. SR-NSCC-2011-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Modification of Trade Recording Fee for Bonds
and Other Technical Rule Changes

March 9, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on February 28, 2011, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) and 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\2\ and Rules 19b-4(f)(2) and 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change amends Addendum A of the NSCC Rules &
Procedures to modify NSCC's fee schedule and to clarify the scope of
trade recording fees and the computation of clearance activity fees.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC 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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise NSCC's fee
schedule (as set forth in Addendum A of NSCC's Rules and Procedures) to
adjust the trade recording fee for bonds to align the fee with the cost
of providing the service. NSCC is adjusting the trade recording fee for
each side of a bond item entered for settlement but not compared by
NSCC from $0.65 per side to $0.85 per side.
    In addition, NSCC is making technical changes to: (1) Clarify that
trade recording fees for equities are incorporated into the Clearance
Activity Fee set forth in Section II.A. of the fee schedule and (2)
adjust the lettering and numbering of the Clearance Activity Fee as set
forth in the fee schedule to provide greater clarity as to how the
various components of that fee are summed.
    The above fee change took effect on March 1, 2011. The textual
changes to NSCC's rules can be found online at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2011/nscc/2011-01.pdf.
    NSCC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because it updates NSCC's fee schedule to align
the trade recording fee for bonds with the costs of providing the
service and makes other technical changes that clarify how fees are
calculated. NSCC asserts that the proposed rule change provides for the
equitable allocation of fees among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    NSCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) and 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rules 19b-
4(f)(2) and 19b-4(f)(4) \6\ thereunder because it (a) effects a change
in an existing service of a registered clearing agency that does not
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities and funds in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and does not significantly affect the respective rights or
obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the service and (b)
establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a
member. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 2.
    \6\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-NSCC-2011-01 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 No. SR-NSCC-2011-01. 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 NSCC's principal office and on NSCC's Web
site at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/nscc/2011.php. 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 No. SR-NSCC-2011-01 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5954 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P