From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:59 PM
To:
Kiechle, Fredric S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maciel, Robert A<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Requested details quench tower and comment: Testing Related Deviations ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor for Coke MACT ICR Letter Dated April 4th, 2016

Thank you for the information. We will discuss and get back to you. I'd like some elaboration on one of your points. "...take into account operational and work practice differences and how these will affect what is represented by the data collected." Can you elaborate? I don't need an answer this week but if I can get it before testing is done, best if before our response to FAQs in next couple weeks, I can add some questions into the amended testing procedure so that we can collect this information at the same time as the testing.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Kiechle, Fredric S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:43 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maciel, Robert A<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Requested details quench tower and comment: Testing Related Deviations ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor for Coke MACT ICR Letter Dated April 4th, 2016

Dr. Jones we appreciate your promptness in responding to our inquiry about testing concerns.  We believe your response to the 201A question may need to be re-evaluated based on the following site specific operational details at the PEC baghouses at our facility:

Method 201A vs Method 5 on Pushing Emission Control System (PECS); uses a stationary baghouse
   ·         Sample using Method201A throughout the entire pushing time period and do not turn off sampling when moving from door to door until the full volume required by the method (2 dscm) is collected.
   Normal operation of our PEC ( controlled through process automation with specific permissives) is for the baghouse ID Fan inlet damper to be tightly closed when not in a push.  When an oven door is removed and the guide moved in place the baghouse inlet damper opens and once a performance level is reached the ram is released to push the coke mass.  Once the quench car of hot pushed coke leaves from under the coke side hood, the baghouse inlet closes and stack flow approaches zero.  There might be a minimal token stack flow between pushes at best.  If we were to sample as suggested from beginning of a push until we reach 2 dscm through X number of pushes, much of the sampled gas potentially would be ambient air back drafting in the stack or residual air from after a push was completed.  Of the 15 minutes push to push, 12 minutes is at near zero stack flow and three minutes is flow during the push proper.  This also will reduce the number of ovens pushed during testing.  Not necessarily.  Given that 201A requires you to sample based on average flow, and the average will be 12 minutes near zero and three minutes at normal pushing flows, the new flow average used to determine the sampling rate will not be representative of the batch release of actual PEC emissions and may still require the same number of ovens.  All other test methods will be sampled comparable to Method 5 requirements and the ability to correlate between M5 and M201A collected data, due to different sampling periods and representative emissions captured, may be lost.  ·         We understand that this testing may result in data that is significantly different from data collected at facilities with PCMs or sheds, i.e., data collected during sampling that is started and stopped for the pushes. Because there are at least three facilities with PECS, we will be examine the data collected and if significantly different can create a subcategory for regulatory purposes.  Certainly testing results may merit future development of subcategories but as part of the consideration, care must be taken to ensure comparisons  take into account operational and work practice differences and how these will affect what is represented by the data collected.

Request To Sample Single Points For Quench Tower

To aid you in determining  our request for sampling locations at the quench tower, we are providing the following added details.
            Our quench tower has a single set of baffles near the top of the structure.  The slats in the baffle assembly are oriented north to south in uniformly spaced groups.  East and west halves are symmetrical as are the north and south halves.  The assemblies rise from the east and west sides from a low point near the perimeter wall to a central peak in the center of the structure.  See attached picture of a partial assembly prior to installation and attached drawing.  Within the baffle assembly, the low point elevation to the high point change is 4 feet 5.5 inches.  Our proposed sampling location would be at three points above the baffles in the north east quadrant of the quench tower at three different points between the north/south centerline of the baffle assembly and the perimeter wall and at heights above the baffles that offered representative flows.

   ·         What is the vertical distance between baffles? From lowest slat to highest slat in the baffle assembly, a 4 foot 5.5 inch change in elevation occurs.  The vertical elevation change from the top of the quench car to bottom of the baffle assembly is 41 feet.  If baffle positions vary over the length of the quench tower, provide a table listing all levels of baffles with their height from ground.  Top of rail ground elevation is 616 feet above mean sea level.  Baffle slat heights within the baffle assembly as follows- see table below.  Slat height is constant north to south.  NOTE : values represent slats on one half ( east or west ) of tower similar to stairs rising.  The pattern reverses from highest to lowest ( center to perimeter) in the mirrored half of the quench tower.

F. Scott Kiechle  Sr. Engineer-Environmental
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor
Maintenance, Environmental & Utilities | 250 W. U.S. Highway 12 Burns Harbor, IN 46304-9745
T +219 787 4968 | F +219 787 4973  | M +219 313 2661  | www.arcelormittal.c
 Qapla'!

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 3:33 PM
To: May, Jeffrey X
Cc: Zavoda, Rich; Hill, John R; Maciel, Robert A; Kiechle, Fredric S; GABRIELLE RAYMOND
Subject: RE: Testing Related Deviations ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor for Coke MACT ICR Letter Dated April 4th, 2016

Here are our answers with one question for you all. We will respond to the quench tower question once we receive your response to our question below.

Method 201A vs Method 5 on Pushing Emission Control System (PECS); uses a stationary baghouse
   ·         Sample using Method201A throughout the entire pushing time period and do not turn off sampling when moving from door to door until the full volume required by the method (2 dscm) is collected. This also will reduce the number of ovens pushed during testing.
   ·         We understand that this testing may result in data that is significantly different from data collected at facilities with PCMs or sheds, i.e., data collected during sampling that is started and stopped for the pushes. Because there are at least three facilities with PECS, we will be examine the data collected and if significantly different can create a subcategory for regulatory purposes.

Request To Sample Single Points For Quench Tower
   ·         What is the vertical distance between baffles? If baffle positions vary over the length of the quench tower, provide a table listing all levels of baffles with their height from ground.

Coal Sampling Request To Take Composite Sample During Day Rather Than One During Each Run
   ·         Approved.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 2:54 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maciel, Robert A<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kiechle, Fredric S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Testing Related Deviations ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor for Coke MACT ICR Letter Dated April 4th, 2016

Find Attached the current ICR related testing issues for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC, in accordance with the Coke MACT ICR requirements.
Jeffrey May | Sr. Engineer-Environmental
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor
Maintenance, Environmental, and Utilities | 250 W US Hwy. 12
Burns Harbor, Indiana 46304
T +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | F +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | M +1<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17178-17180]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64107; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the
Operation of Its Pilot Program Regarding Minimum Value Sizes for
Flexible Exchange Options

March 22, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 11, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its option trading rules to extend
the operation of its pilot program (``Pilot Program'') regarding
minimum value sizes for flexible exchange options (``FLEX Options''),
currently scheduled to expire on March 28, 2011, until March 30, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange; on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com); on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov; and the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange hereby proposes to amend its option trading rules to
extend the operation of its Pilot Program regarding minimum value sizes
for FLEX Options, currently scheduled to expire on March 28, 2011,\4\
until March 30, 2012. This filing does not propose any substantive
changes to the Pilot Program and contemplates that all other terms of
FLEX Options will remain the same. The Exchange believes that extending
the Pilot Program will benefit public customers and other market
participants who will be able to use FLEX Options to manage risk for
smaller portfolios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62084 (May 12,
2010), 75 FR 28091 (May 19, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed extension of the Pilot Program, and as
required by the terms of the Pilot Program's implementation,\5\ the
Exchange has submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a Pilot Program Report that provides an
analysis of the Pilot Program covering the period during which the
Pilot Program has been in effect. This Pilot Program Report includes
(i) data and analysis on the open interest and trading volume in (a)
FLEX Equity Options that have opening transactions with a minimum size
of 0 to 249 contracts and less than $1 million in underlying value; (b)
FLEX Index Options that have opening transactions with a minimum
opening size of less than $10 million in underlying equivalent value;
and (ii) analysis on the types of investors that initiated opening FLEX
Equity and Index Options transactions (i.e., institutional, high net
worth, or retail). The report has been submitted to the Commission on a
confidential basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that there is sufficient investor interest
and demand in the Pilot Program to warrant extension for an additional
year. The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program has provided
investors with additional means of managing their risk exposures and
carrying out their investment objectives. The Exchange has not
experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the Pilot
Program.
    If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of
the Pilot Program, or should the Exchange propose to make the Pilot
Program

permanent, the Exchange will submit, along with any filing proposing
such amendments to the Pilot Program, an additional Pilot Program
Report covering the period during which the Pilot Program was in effect
and including the details referenced above, along with the nominal
dollar value of the underlying security of each trade. The Pilot
Program Report would be submitted to the Commission at least two months
prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program and would be provided
on a confidential basis.
    The Exchange notes that any positions established under this Pilot
Program would not be impacted by the expiration of the Pilot Program.
For example, a 10-contract FLEX Equity Option opening position that
overlies less than $1 million in the underlying security and expires in
January 2015 could be established during the Pilot Program. If the
Pilot Program were not extended, the position would continue to exist
and any further trading in the series would be subject to the minimum
value size requirements for continued trading in that series.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the
Pilot Program, which eliminates the minimum value size applicable to
FLEX Options, would provide greater opportunities for investors to
manage risk through the use of FLEX Options. Further, the Exchange
notes that it has not experienced any adverse effects from the
operation of the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay to permit the current pilot to continue uninterrupted.
The Commission finds that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The
Commission notes in waiving the 30 day operative delay that NYSE Amex's
original pilot was published for comment in the Federal Register and
the Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule
change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, NYSE Amex is proposing to extend the existing pilot on the
same terms and conditions as they were originally approved by the
Commission. This includes, as described in more detail above, a
representation that NYSE Amex will continue to monitor the pilot and
submit certain interim reports during the extended pilot period, as
well as a final report covering the pilot period should the Exchange
decide to extend or file for permanent approval of the pilot. Finally,
the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it has not
experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the pilot
program.
    Based on the above, the Commission finds that it is consistent with
investor protection and the public interest to waive the 30 day
operative delay in accordance with Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the
pilot can continue on an uninterrupted basis, and therefore designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-15. 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 20549-1090 on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-15 and should be submitted on or before
April 18, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7167 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47852]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0736]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedules that govern the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge
across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 67.2,
at Atlantic City, NJ and US40-322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across
the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at
Atlantic City, NJ. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2015
Atlantic City Air Show. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in
the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 4
p.m. to 8 p.m. on September 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0736], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6222, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and US40-
322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(e) and
(f), respectively, to facilitate the 2015 Atlantic City Air Show.
    Under the normal operating schedule for the Route 30 (Absecon
Boulevard) Bridge across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 67.2, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR 117.733(e); the
bridge need only open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from April 1
through October 31. Under the normal operating schedule for the US40-
322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR
117.733(f); the draw shall open on signal; except that, from June 1
through September 30 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, and from 4 p.m. to 6
p.m., the draw need not open. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-
navigation position of the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and
US40-322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge are 20 feet and 10 feet,
respectively, above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will be closed to
navigation from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on
September 2, 2015. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a
variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels,
recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has
carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational
waterway users.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the
bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the
users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-19561 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 87719]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0953]

Safety Zones; New Year's Fireworks Display, Hood Canal,
Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will a enforce safety zone surrounding the
Alderbrook Resort dock involved in a fireworks display in Hood Canal,
WA, from December 31, 2023, through January 1, 2024 to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. Our regulation
for marine events within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District identifies
the regulated area for this event in Hood Canal, WA. During the
enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced for the
Alderbrook Resort and Spa Fireworks regulated area identified in the
fourth row of the table in Sec.  165.1332, from 11 p.m. on December 31,
2023, through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email MST1 Steve Barnett, Sector
Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
206-217-6051, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone
regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the annual Alderbrook Resort and Spa
Fireworks display in Hood Canal from 11 p.m. on December 31, 2023,
through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2024. This action is being taken to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this
event. Our regulation for marine events within the Thirteenth Coast
Guard District, Sec.  165.1332, specifics the location of the regulated
area for the Alderbrook Resort and Spa Fireworks display which
encompasses portions of Hood Canal. During the enforcement periods, if
you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply
with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol
displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: December 12, 2023.
M.A. McDonnell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2023-27771 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


CAIR Replacement Rule

Discussions between LADCO and EPA

March 16, 2009

I.  Introduction

	On Monday, March 16, 2009, EPA held a call with the Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) to discuss the CAIR replacement rule.  See
Appendix A for a list of the participants in the call.  The notes that
follow are a detailed summary of the call.

II.  EPA Opening Comments

	Sam Napolitano, CAMD, began with a short introduction, explaining that
EPA was beginning the process of creating a replacement rule for CAIR.
The Agency is reviewing all options, setting up analyses, and preparing
technical models.  The goal is to finalize a replacement rule within two
years.

	The primary objectives are to help states comply with the NAAQS and to
reduce interstate transport.  Therefore, EPA has decided that it would
be best to start working with states immediately.  EPA would like to
hear from the states about what type of replacement rule would most help
them meet air quality requirements.  Sam stressed that this is the
beginning of a dialogue process, and that EPA intends to continue these
types of discussions throughout the rule development process.

	This is a chance for the states to talk to the key EPA staff that will
actually develop and write the rules, as well as the OGC attorneys
assigned to the rule development.  Sam stressed that EPA is interested
in hearing the states' thoughts and concerns.  Everything is on the
table as EPA puts together ideas for the new Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, who should arrive within the next couple of weeks.

	In the spirit of listening to the states, Sam asked Mike Koerber to
lead the discussion through the topic agenda and to outline the states'
thoughts or ideas on the major issues:  baseline; significant
contribution; remedies; and coverage and timing issues.

III.  LADCO Opening Comments

	Mike Koerber, LADCO, began by noting that LADCO and the states had
anticipated listening more to EPA than speaking.  However, they are
excited and encouraged by EPA's desire for dialogue.

	LADCO has been working with the northeast states and more recently the
southeast states through the state collaborative process, which has been
going on for over four years.  In their efforts to meet the 1997
standards, states banded together to address regional transport.  They
found that individual state programs overlapped and thought that it
might be possible to develop consistent programs.  While the states
recognize that a federal program would achieve the desired consistency,
there was not much federal action a few years back, and so the states
stepped in to fill the void.

	In June 2008, fifteen states and the District of Columbia signed a
letter asking for dialogue about regional problems.  Although there was
no response to the letter, which Mike attributes to the issues EPA has
faced during the past year, it appears that EPA intends this meeting to
be the beginning of the effort to re-establish a federal-state dialogue.
 LADCO and the states are very interested in this and appreciate EPA's
efforts in this regard.

	A similar group of fifteen states and the District of Columbia created
a framework document calling for a strategy to deal with power plant
emissions in response to the court decision on CAIR.  The near term
focus is on the 1997 standards, which are still an issue for many
states.  Although progress has been made, nonattainment areas remain,
and states continue to finalize plans to meet the 1997 standards.

	The framework document also recognizes the new, tighter standards for
PM2.5 and ozone.  The states believe that coordination with EPA will be
critical to meeting those standards.  A strong federal program for PM2.5
and ozone transport in the power sector and possibly in other sectors is
necessary to provide for attainment.

	ICI boilers are an example of non-power sector units that might need to
be controlled.  There were discussions with EPA recently about these
boilers.  Also, the state collaborative process established a workgroup
that spent two years looking at options to meet the standards.  The
workgroup did not focus just on power plants because the states
recognize that other sectors will need to be controlled to meet
attainment.  The workgroup developed performance-based standards, did
solid cost analysis, and performed emissions modeling and analysis.  The
entire package is not yet complete, but the group should have a
recommendation soon.

	While the states look forward to sharing the official recommendation,
the key element that Mike said he wanted to highlight was the
recognition by states that any program seeking to address the stricter
PM2,5 and ozone standards would have to include units other than large
EGUs.

IV.  Importance of Regional Planning

	Mike said that before proceeding to address each item of the agenda, he
wished to speak briefly about regional air quality planning.

	LADCO is the second oldest regional air quality planning group.
Numerous benefits have been realized through 20 years of group
collaboration, including improved air quality, technical benefits from a
common emissions inventory, and policy benefits.  Although LADCO was
established through a series of lawsuits between the states and EPA, it
is important to recognize that progress has been made since that time,
and that there is now greater collaboration between LADCO and EPA.

	LADCO is grateful for the significant funding received from the states
and other groups.  While LADCO realizes that EPA has cut some funding,
it hopes that the Agency continues to emphasize regional solutions.
States will continue to fund some of LADCO's operations, though not
likely at the 100 percent level.  Thus, federal funding for RPOs and
other regional initiatives is critical to the future of the regional
planning process.

	Vinson Hellwig, MDEQ, reiterated that many of the air quality problems
facing states are regional and that solutions will have to be broader
than one state or locality can deal with.  Laurel Kroack, IEPA, voiced
strong agreement on this.

	Mike concluded his opening remarks by noting that the technical work
LADCO is undertaking in support of this framework includes the
Northeast, and that even some of the Southeast states are participating.
 While the Southeast states did not sign the framework document, they
were involved in some of the technical discussions and participated in
some of the modeling.  He wanted to recognize their technical
contributions even though those states might not be ready to sign policy
documents.

	Mike then turned the discussion back to EPA.

V.  Core Issues Outlined by EPA

	Sam Napolitano said that EPA would lay out the issues, but that he
would be unable to indicate how EPA would eventually proceed, as the
Agency is uncertain at present as to how to respond to the issues raised
by the CAIR court decision.  The purpose of this meeting is to gather
different ideas and thoughts to present to the new Assistant
Administrator for Air, whose responsibility it will be to decide how to
address the ramifications of the court decision.

	Sam invited Tim Smith, OAQPS, to talk about the key issues EPA is
considering in the CAIR replacement rule.  He asked that speakers
identify themselves as notes of the meeting were being prepared and
would be shared with LADCO.

	Tim outlined the following major issues:

1.  Baseline

	What is the starting point? What is the baseline?  When the original
CAIR rule was developed there were many questions about how to set up a
baseline and what to take into account when creating the baseline.  The
situation has continued to change, and EPA would like to know how states
believe the baseline should be created, and what factors should be
considered in the baseline.

2.  Quantifying significant contribution

	This is one of the key issues from the court decision.  The court held
that CAIR failed to quantify adequately each state's significant
contribution.  There are many smaller issues that come up under this
general rubric, but the key questions pivot on how significant
contribution is quantified.

	Sonja Rodman, OGC, noted that EPA is uncertain as to how to respond to
the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court.  In some ways, the decision is
quite clear, but in others it is rather murky.  For example, it is very
clear that the court found what EPA did unacceptable.  However, it is
less clear precisely what the court would find acceptable.  EPA
continues to struggle with what the decision means, as well as with how
the decision limits EPA and/or might impact future programs.

	One of the biggest areas of uncertainty is how to define significant
contribution.  The court held that EPA had failed to identify and
quantify each state's significant contribution.  Thus, the Agency is
seeking new ways to think about significant contribution.

3.  Remedy

	What remedy should be applied to the quantified significant
contribution?  What types of approaches should be considered?  Is the
trading option practical?

4.  Affected Area/Standards

	Which states or regions should be covered by the rule?  What should the
timing of the rule look like?  Should EPA start with existing standards?
Or, should it try to integrate the newer standards into a replacement
rule? Timing becomes a key element when considering which standards to
target.

	Sam Napolitano noted that rule development might take considerably
longer if EPA tries to incorporate the newer standards.  But if EPA
relies on older standards, the rule may be seen as irrelevant.  The
resource issue is linked to the timing issue because developing a
program to meet new, stricter standards will require additional staff
time and effort.  In addition to dealing with these issues, EPA must
address the court's concern about the attainment deadlines.  EPA is
seeking state input on how to address all of these issues and concerns.

	Lastly, Sam said that EPA career staff share LADCO's concern about
industrial boilers and other boilers.  Many questions remain about how
to regulate those types of sources.  Can they be treated in a manner
similar to how large EGUs are treated?  Are there other sources to
consider in this rule?  Or should other sources be left to a companion
rule?  Is there anything else EPA should be doing regarding the NAAQS?

	Now is the time to share views.  As noted earlier, a goal of these
discussions is to bring ideas to the new Assistant Administrator for
Air, whose task it will be to set the agenda and priorities, and to
implement and allocate resources.  Sam encouraged the states to think
broadly, suggesting that ideas can always be scaled back or set aside.

	He also said that EPA is operating under the assumption that there will
not be a legislative fix or a new court opinion.  The Agency must create
a rule that satisfies the current regulations and related court
opinions.  Because the legal landscape is complex, pragmatic decisions
will have to be made about the new rulemaking process.

	Sam concluded by saying that this is the first of a series of
teleconferences with states and other stakeholders, including OTC,
NACAA, the southern states, Texas, industry representatives, and
environmental groups.  When this series has concluded, EPA will meet
with states to report  what EPA has heard from all of the groups.  This
will allow the states to react and respond, and to continue the general
dialogue.

VI.  LADCO Response to Core Issues

	Mike Koerber mentioned that LADCO and the states had recently developed
a one-page summary of the internal discussions concerning what LADCO
states hope will emerge from the state collaborative framework
discussions with the Northeast and Southeast states.  However, as the
one-page summary is still out for comment he inquired whether the states
would agree to sharing its contents on this call.

	Dan Murray, IDEM, said he was comfortable with doing so.  He did not
think it would surprise EPA that states are talking about whether CAIR
satisfies the BART or RACT requirements as it was supposed to do under
the original rule.  Indiana has continued to voice support in the LADCO
discussions for meeting the BART and RACT requirements through the
replacement CAIR rule.  However, he has not been hearing as much about
that in the collaborative process discussions and was interested in
discussing it in this call.  Laurel Kroack and Bob Hodanbosi agreed that
the summary of discussions should be shared with EPA.

	There were no objections from the other states on this matter.  Mike
noted that the summary document responded to most of the issues raised
by EPA's agenda.  The group agreed that the summary would provide a good
framework for the discussion.  But before moving to this discussion,
several of the states asked for time to respond to some of the issues
EPA had raised earlier.

VII.  State Responses to EPA's Presentation

1.  Baseline

	Vinson Hellwig stressed that Michigan believes any replacement program
will have to consider sources other than EGUs.  EPA must especially
consider industrial boilers and cement kilns.  Although these are of
particular concern, there may be other sectors that should be included
in the rule.

	Tim Smith responded that EPA is starting to look at non-EGUs, and is
attempting to assemble data on inventories and the percentage of
contribution from each sector.  EPA welcomes any information the states
might have about industrial boilers and cement kilns.

	Laurel Kroack agreed that industrial boilers and cement kilns could be
controlled in a highly cost-effective manner.  She suggested that EPA
should at least cover the 1997 and 2006 standards in any new rule.  She
was less certain about the 2008 standards, which Illinois is still
grappling with.  She also noted that the dates suggested in the LADCO
summary were acceptable to Illinois.

	Larry Bruss, WDNR, agreed that any future rule would have to consider
more than just EGU sources.  He stressed that it is critical to have a
broad view in developing a replacement rule.  Issues can be looked at
piece by piece, but in the end the whole rule must work together.  It is
important that the same logic extends throughout the rule to avoid
having one logic drive the definition of contribution areas and another
how a remedy is applied.  Lastly, in reviewing the rule during
development to ensure consistency it is absolutely essential to be
certain that the rule fully conforms to the court's decision.

	Dan Murray agreed with Larry.  However, he cautioned that he would like
to see modeling showing what level of reductions would be required from
other source sectors to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).
He would like to be certain that there are data to justify putting
controls on additional sectors.

	Sam Napolitano then asked states which other sectors might need to be
controlled and what data Dan would like to see to support further
control efforts.

	Dan responded that his main concern was to be sure that the data
justified controlling additional sectors.  Furthermore, which units
within a sector are affected should be driven by the data.  For example,
he agreed that large ICI boilers probably should be affected, but was
less sure about smaller ones.  His key point was that before deciding
which classes of units and which sectors to look at, EPA should gather
data and make the decision based on what would be most effective to
control.

	Mike Koerber followed up on Dan's point about ICI boilers, noting that
states have many different boilers and fuel types; thus, it is difficult
to fit one size to all the states.  The Midwest states want to focus on
coal boilers with over 100 mmBtu/hr, as that is where the emission mass
is concentrated in the Midwest inventories.  Given its various fuel
types, the Northeast has a different perspective.  Such fundamental
regional differences will be a challenge.

2.  Standards

	Bob Hodanbosi discussed the standards that the rule should address.  He
noted that it would be perplexing if EPA were to release a rule in 2011
that does not account for the 2008 standards.  Even though looking at
the new standards might require substantial effort, developing any type
of rule will require a great deal of effort.  It would be very confusing
if EPA were to spend time and money developing a rule to old standards,
especially as those old standards would be met and exceeded by the new
ones.

	Laurel Kroack agreed that it was important to have a comprehensive
approach.  She reiterated, however, that Illinois continues to review
the 2008 standards to determine whether local VOC will be sufficient or
whether regional NOx, or something even more stringent, would be
required.  It is difficult to discuss specifics without the modeling in
hand.

	Bob responded that although modeling was certainly needed, it was
already clear that transport would be a component of the SIPs.  He
reiterated that people would be confused by a rule released in 2011 that
does not consider 2008 standards.

	Bob Lopez, WDNR, said that one starting point is to determine what
significant contribution is and to define it in a replacement rule.  As
state air directors have discussed significant contribution at length,
this might be a good place to start.

VIII.  LADCO's Summary Document

	Mike Koerber agreed and noted that the discussion of significant
contribution was a good segue into the three-step approach in the
summary of LADCO's position in the state collaborative framework
discussions.

	Mike noted that LADCO offers this approach as a way to deal with
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance.  LADCO believes this approach would both deal with the
transport problem and satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)
consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion.

1.  Coverage/Timing

	Areas of interest for nonattainment and maintenance should be
identified through a monitoring plus modeling process, similar to the
process for identifying areas in CAIR.  Both the current monitoring and
the future year modeling would need to show nonattainment or maintenance
issues in order for the area to be defined as an area of interest.

	The states suggest using the most current air quality data from
2006–2008.  These data are already quality-assured and should provide
a sound basis for analysis.  With regard to future year modeling, the
states did regional analysis for 2012 and 2018.  The states realize that
these dates may not fit EPA's schedule.  However, because they had the
modeling framework and the inventories prepared, using these dates
allowed the states to produce quick results.  In particular, the states
can provide EPA the data for nonattainment projections for 2012 and
maintenance projections for 2018.

2.  Significant Contribution

	The CAMx model was used to perform source apportionment for 2012 to
help quantify significant state contribution to nonattainment.  Modeling
for 2018 continues, and although most of the results are available, they
have yet to be finalized.

3.  Remedy

	The states' preferred remedy would be reduction requirements for states
that contribute to nonattainment or maintenance issues.  The states
propose to use 1% and 4% as the levels of significant contribution that
would trigger controls.  States contributing 1% would be required to
meet CAIR Phase I type reductions, while states contributing 4% would be
required to make deeper emissions reductions.

	For the 1% base level of control, the states realize that EGUs are
already subject to the CAIR reductions for 2009 and 2010.  They propose
that if EPA includes large non-EGUs in the program, it use 2012 as the
compliance date for those units.

	For the higher level of control, triggered at 4%, the states would like
to see more stringent controls than CAIR.  The states believe that this
would most likely include large non-EGU sources.  Also, because more
time would be required for sources to prepare for the more stringent
controls, the states propose a future compliance date between 2015 and
2018, depending on the stringency of the program.

	The 1% and 4% are relative to the total source contribution in the
areas of interest.  The states believe that using a relative metric is
easier to understand and provides consistency across pollutants and
standards.  EPA used a different metric in the past and may feel bound
by precedent to use something other than a relative metric.  However,
although it appears that the courts approved EPA's previous metric, the
states believe that the metric they are proposing is easier and more
straightforward.

	Trading and banking should be part of the program.  While intrastate
trading should be allowed freely, interstate trading should have
geographic controls.  One option would be for states in the 4% bracket
to be allowed to trade only with other states in the 4% bracket.
Banking should be allowed, but with strong flow control.

IX.  Discussion of LADCO's Proposal

1.  Thresholds

	Tim Smith asked LADCO to clarify what 1% referred to.  Mike Koerber
responded that it was 1% of the total contribution at a given downwind
nonattainment area or monitor.

	Sam Napolitano clarified that LADCO was looking at total contribution
-- not simply EGU contribution, but the total upwind state contribution
for both the annual and the daily PM2.5, as well as ozone standards.  He
then asked why LADCO chose 1% and 4% as the thresholds for control.

	Mike indicated that the 1% was adopted from what EPA used in CAIR for
PM2.5, with the difference being that EPA used 1% of the standard, and
LADCO is using 1% of contribution.  When LADCO looked at source
apportionment it appeared that 1% would capture the largest mass of
state emissions.  Between 4% and 5% there is very little difference in
which states are contributing.  Four percent still captures a high
percentage of the contributing states.

	Sam then asked the states what their goal was for reductions, and
whether they had determined how much reduction would be required from
upwind states.  Mike responded that states would need to achieve
whatever level of control their contribution percentage triggered.

	In summarizing his understanding of the states' proposal, Sam noted
that the states want the same cap levels as those outlined in the old
CAIR plan, with stronger controls required in 2015.  He also asked the
states to confirm that they had chosen 2012 and 2018 as their modeling
years because those data were available, and not because those years had
some special significance.

	The states confirmed this understanding.  They indicated that although
they were uncertain as to what the stronger controls should be for 2015,
LADCO and the member states would like to work with EPA to develop the
specifics of those controls.

	Sam then told LADCO that EPA wants to be sure the Agency is helping
states with attainment and maintenance.

	In response, Mike noted that attainment planning goes beyond the LADCO
summary document, which is about the emissions transport provisions of
section 110(a)(2)(D).  A program that both addresses transport and
provides attainment in the downwind areas is desirable.  However, there
are numerous nonattainment situations in which local source contribution
is very important.  The states are dealing with such local issues, which
will need to be addressed in conjunction with regional controls.  They
understand that achieving attainment will require the right mix of local
and regional controls.  However, the LADCO summary document is not
actually intended to solve nonattainment, but rather the transport
issues associated with nonattainment.

2.  Concerns about Significant Contribution

	Sonja Rodman expressed concern that the process LADCO proposes closely
mirrors the process that was used for CAIR, a process that was rejected
by the court.  The three steps seem very similar to the CAIR process:
(1) identifying areas of interest; (2) establishing reduction
requirements; and (3) implementing a remedy.

	Sonja said that this approach does not appear to include the important
step of quantifying each individual state’s significant contribution.
Under the court's decision EPA is required to quantify each state's
contribution, identify and quantify the part of the contribution that
EPA deems to be significant, and eliminate all of the significant
contribution.  She expressed concern that if it fails to specifically
quantify and then eliminate each state’s significant contribution this
plan might encounter the same difficulties that CAIR did.  The court was
quite clear in deciding that EPA had failed to quantify each state's
individual contribution in CAIR.

	Dan Murray replied that the states had been having a similar discussion
and felt that the court recognized that there is a significant
contribution threshold.  The issue is where that threshold lies.  The
emissions do not need to be zeroed out from upwind sources but instead
reduced below the significant contribution threshold.

	Sonja agreed that emissions from upwind sources do not need to be
completely eliminated.  However, it is important to remember that the
threshold used in CAIR was part of the linkage analysis.  For example
for PM2.5, if the contribution analysis showed that a state’s total
contribution was over a certain threshold it was required to participate
in CAIR.  However, that threshold was not used to define the amount by
which a state had to reduce emissions.  The state specific emission
reduction requirements were defined through a complex process that took
into account cost and assumed interstate trading as a remedy. The court
concluded that this analysis was not adequate to quantify each state’s
significant contribution and that EPA had failed to eliminate each
state’s significant contribution.

	Larry Bruss replied that he thought the summary document might be
unclear about LADCO's proposal, and that all that was required of states
is that they reduce to either a 1% or 4% level.  Second, he said that
eliminating all of the significant contribution from a source might be
impossible.  For example, southeast Wisconsin is immediately downwind
from Chicago and will likely always be affected on high ozone days.
However, people still need to live and work in Chicago, making it nearly
impossible to zero out all of Chicago's emissions.  The same can be said
for a number of other areas.  It is impossible to remove enough
emissions from the atmosphere to eliminate significant contribution.
That is why the states propose a plan in which all states must address
some level of contribution (1%), and that those states that have a
severe impact would really have to reduce emissions (4%).

	Sonja suggested that there might be some confusion in this discussion,
and she explained that the statute requires the elimination of all
significant contribution.  In CAIR, however, significant contribution
was defined, not on the basis of air quality threshold contribution, but
on the basis of cost.  Significant contribution was defined as the
reductions that a state could achieve through implementation of highly
cost-effective controls, and the highly-cost-effective analysis assumed
trading.  Thresholds were used as justification for inclusion in the
CAIR region.  Thus, what should the role of the replacement plan be in
reducing contribution?  Should the new rule eliminate all significant
contribution, or only reduce it?

3.  Modeling

	Turning to the specifics of the states' modeling, Sam Napolitano asked
about the CAMx modeling, and whether the states had enough information
to say which sectors had the largest role in significant contribution.
For example, in a target area could the states say whether it was EGUs,
large industrial boilers, or mobile sources that contributed the most?

	Mike responded that LADCO looked at contribution by chemical species
and did its modeling based on geographic zones defined by state
boundaries.  The data were then broken down by source sector, including
EGU, non-EGU, on-road, and off-road.  The results showed that the EGU
contribution was important, but that it was not necessarily the largest
at each location.  Mike indicated that he would have to review the
results to discuss this with more specificity.  He noted, however, that
mobile sources were an important category at many locations.

	Sam confirmed with Mike that the geographical areas considered were
only states, not partial states, and that LADCO had tried to use the
same types of nonattainment areas that EPA uses so that everyone's data
would be comparable.  Sam concluded by saying that should the states
feel comfortable sharing these data, EPA would really benefit from their
technical work.

4.  Timing

	Tim Smith next discussed the court's concerns about coordinating
compliance schedules with achievement of reductions.  In particular, the
court found that EPA was not proposing to accomplish enough by 2010;
however, he noted, by its ruling the court made it impossible to have a
rule in place by then.  He interpreted that as a general direction from
the court to be more mindful of attainment deadlines in relation to
compliance dates.  He indicated that he thought EPA would have to better
explain the relationship between the two in any new plan, and he asked
whether the states had considered this issue, specifically with regard
to the 1% and 4% thresholds they were proposing.

	Mike Koerber responded that the 1% base level is from the existing CAIR
program, and that those compliance dates have passed or will soon
arrive.  The states foresee a longer compliance timeline only if EPA
decides to tighten the CAIR replacement rule by adding other sectors
such as boilers.  An additional 2-3 years might then be required.

	However, for the more stringent level of control, triggered at the 4%
threshold, more time might be needed depending on exactly where the
thresholds were set, and on what types of reductions were required.
Either way, with a higher level of control the states thought it was
only logical that it would take longer to implement.

	Tim asked what percentage of states in the CAIR region LADCO thought
would trigger the 4% threshold.  After some discussion, Mike summarized
by explaining that most CAIR states would end up in the 1% category.
The 4% category would be a smaller subset of states, for the most part
eliminating fringe states such as Iowa, Florida, Mississippi, and
Louisiana.  He added that Minnesota contributed at 1% in this study.

5.  Trading

	Sam Napolitano then turned to interstate trading and asked how the
restrictions would work.

	Mike Koerber noted that the court had strong reservations about EPA's
trading program, and that the need to preserve "linkages" must be
considered.  The limits on interstate trading would be geographically
based and would allow states in the 4% category to trade only with each
other.  The nonattainment demonstrations might need to be revisited if
trades of large magnitudes were made.  The states realize that these
restrictions might be complicated, but they believe that trading is an
important cost control element of the plan.

	Sam asked if the states had any special provision concerning intrastate
trading.  Mike replied that he would not speak in detail about
intrastate trading, as it is fairly simple and would not be restricted.

	Laurel Kroack said she was not concerned about the Chicago area or the
down-state utilities, noting that if the intrastate numbers are set
correctly trading should not be a problem.  She added that Illinois
generally supports trading as the most cost-effective way to get the
deepest reductions.

	Regarding interstate trading, Rich Damberg, OAQPS, asked for a
clarification as to whether states over the 4% threshold could trade
with any state.  For example, Illinois would be able to trade with
Missouri, but could it also trade with New York?

	Mike replied that Illinois could only trade with states with which it
was also significantly contributing to nonattainment.

	Dan Murray noted that the trading provision had been incorporated into
the document during the group's last discussion, and that the group
would have to discuss it further.  He added that he would like to pursue
a greater degree of interstate trading.  Further modeling and study
would obviously be required, and there might still be some geographic
limitations, but a broader trading program would help to provide more
cost-effective reductions.

6.  Banking and Flow Control

	Sam Napolitano raised the subject of flow control, asking the states to
explain the environmental objective and the protocols they foresaw
implementing.

	Mike Koerber replied that the states had not discussed flow control in
detail and thus could not offer a suggestion at present.

	Tim Smith then raised the subject of banking, noting that there was a
large SO2 bank, and that the manner in which any replacement plan dealt
with those banked allowances would greatly affect the nature and timing
of the controls that companies might choose to add.  Because of the high
level of uncertainty, there is concern that many companies may choose to
use the bank until the regulatory situation is more certain.  This means
that there is a potential for a short term increase in emissions while
companies use more banked emissions.  EPA has encountered difficulties
in modeling this situation, and Tim asked whether the states had
thoughts to share on this issue.

	Bob Lopez replied that the importance of the bank had been implicit in
the LADCO discussions, but that the subject had not been addressed
internally by the states.

7.  BART and RACT Requirements

	Tim Smith asked how the states were approaching BART, and whether they
would look at BART relative to overall reductions.

	Mike Koerber replied that LADCO had not addressed this issue in great
detail, but that it intended to do so in future discussions.

	Tim explained that when EPA created CAIR participation in CAIR was
defined as meeting BART requirements.  EPA modeling showed CAIR would
achieve greater reductions than BART guidelines. In the CAIR replacement
rule, EPA will again need to address how the rule could be integrated
with BART requirements.  EPA also needs to address the degree to which a
CAIR replacement rule could address RACT requirements.

	Bob Hodanbosi noted that some of the states had a longstanding
disagreement with CAIR, and so had moved forward with the NOx RACT,
putting on tighter controls irrespective of CAIR.

	Larry Bruss noted that other states had problems with a CAIR rule
structure that did not provide for reductions in nonattainment areas.
As a result, states pursued RACT as though CAIR did not exist.  States
did not see the same need for immediate action with visibility and took
a longer range approach.

	As noted earlier in the discussion, all of these programs must fit
together, and Tim thought industry would be far more supportive if the
regulatory community could show how the programs work together and
provide co-benefits.  He indicated that EPA would like to hear any
thoughts the states have on synergizing the emissions control programs.

	Sam Napolitano added that EPA would be interested in any suggestions
the states might have for further integrating anything from CAIR or the
regional haze programs, and that this was the opportunity for states to
raise these types of issues.

	Larry Bruss mentioned visibility requirements, noting that while the
court did not address them, those requirements are still part of the
act.

	Mike Koerber agreed that visibility needs to be addressed, but he
suggested that it might not be as much of a priority.  He thought the
CAIR SO2 and NOx requirements would satisfy any section 110(a)(2)(D)
visibility requirements.

8.  Coverage

	Sam then asked whether there were any other topics that states wanted
to discuss.

	Larry Bruss mentioned that EPA might want to look beyond the
traditional eastern U.S.  group of states.  Especially if EPA uses the
suggested 1% threshold, the Agency will find states in the west that may
be significant contributors to nonattainment areas.  For instance,
California probably contributes at significance levels to areas of
nonattainment in Arizona.

	Sam responded by asking if Larry saw the replacement CAIR program as a
fully national program.

	Larry replied that he thought it would have to be.  Section
110(a)(2)(D) is applied in a similar manner regardless of where a state
is located in the country.  He suggested having a national perspective
when evaluating replacement proposals.

	Sam said that EPA understood these concerns and will consider how much
larger of a geographic area the Agency should include in the replacement
CAIR rule.  He noted that one consideration is that 2/3 of western EGUs
have scrubbers.  Furthermore, the west in general, but California
specifically, has a lot of large gas-fired units.

9.  Maintenance

	Tim Smith then asked Mike Koerber to again explain the section of
LADCO's proposal that covers maintenance.

	Mike replied that the proposal expands the lists of areas of interest
by using a concentration threshold of 4% below the standard.  Even
though the list of areas would be expanded, he did not think the LADCO
plan would offer a lot of additional emissions reductions over the
earlier CAIR plan.

X.  Conclusion

	Sam Napolitano concluded the call by thanking the states for taking the
time to discuss the CAIR replacement rule with EPA.  He noted that he
considers the ideas they laid out to be a “work in progress”, and
that he appreciates that states are willing to share ideas that might
not be official positions but that are starting points for a strong
dialogue between the states and EPA.  He reiterated that EPA would hold
a series of teleconferences with states, industry groups, and
environmental groups, and would then share the results of all these
meetings with LADCO and other states.

	Mike Koerber thanked Sam for establishing this line of communication.
He said LADCO would forward its recommendation, along with the technical
work and modeling done to support its proposal, once it is complete in
another month or so.  He indicated that LADCO would at that point like
to meet with EPA to discuss its key recommendations in detail.

Appendix A:

Participants

LADCO

	Mike Koerber (LADCO)

	Vinson Hellwig (MDEQ)

	Bob Hodanbosi (Ohio EPA)

	Laurel Kroack (IEPA)

	John Melby (WDNR)

	Dan Murray (IDEM)

	Larry Bruss (WDNR)

	Bob Lopez (WDNR)

EPA

CAMD

	Sam Napolitano

	Jenny Jachim

	Larry Kertcher

	Beth Murray

	Gabrielle Stevens

	Meg Victor

OAPQS

	Bill Harnett

	Rich Damberg

	Todd Hawes

	Gobeail McKinley

	Tim Smith

	Larry Sorells

	Chet Wayland

OGC

	Sonja Rodman

Representatives from EPA Regions 1, 5, and 6

 PAGE

 PAGE   15


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 8686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from
Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, NH to waive the
surplus property requirements for approximately 19 acres of airport
property located at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester,
NH. The subject parcels have been used for non-aeronautical purposes
for over 30 years under temporary relief of surplus property
requirements. It has been determined through study and master planning
that the subject parcels will not be needed for aeronautical purposes
as they are not contiguous to the airport proper. Full and permanent
relief of the surplus property requirements on these specific parcels
will allow the airport and its tenants on these parcels to make the
necessary and aviation-compatible improvements to the parcels. All
revenues through the leasing of the parcels will continue to be subject
to the FAAs revenue-use policy and dedicated to the maintenance and
operation of the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Barry J. Hammer at the
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Documents are available for review by
appointment by contacting Mr. David Bush, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
contacting Mr. Barry J. Hammer, Federal Aviation Administration, 16 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-
7625.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on January 29, 2013.
Mary T. Walsh,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-02599 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31482-31484]
[DOCID:fr03jn10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62168; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Add Certain
Violations of its Communications and Give-up Policies to its MRVP

May 25, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 12, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476A to
add Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities (Communications Between Exchange and
Members' Offices) to Part 1A: List of Exchange Rule Violations and
Fines Applicable Thereto (``Minor Rule Violation Plan'').\3\ The text
of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE Amex's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at NYSE Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange's corporate affiliate, New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), submitted a companion rule filing proposing
corresponding amendments to NYSE Rule 476A. See SR-NYSE-2010-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476A to
add Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities (Communications Between Exchange and
Members' Offices) to Part 1A of its Minor Rule Violation Plan.
Background
    Effective October 1, 2008, NYSE Euronext, acquired the parent
company of the Exchange's predecessor, the American Stock Exchange LLC,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the ``Merger'').\4\ In
connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange relocated
all equities trading conducted on its legacy trading systems and
facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York to systems
and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York, New York (the
``Equities Relocation'').\5\ Similarly, on March 2, 2009, the Exchange
relocated all its options trading to trading systems and facilities
located at 11 Wall Street, New York, New York (the ``Options
Relocation'').\6\ As a result of the Equities and Options Relocations,
the NYSE and NYSE Amex Equities Trading Floors are located within the
11 Wall Street building in a room adjacent to the NYSE Amex Options
Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex-
2008-62) (order approving the Merger).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63) (order
approving the Equities Relocation).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9843 (March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14) (order
approving the Options Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities
    Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities governs two primary areas: (i)
communications between the Floor and other locations, and (ii) the use
and/or possession of portable or wireless communication or trading
devices.
    First, Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities broadly prohibits members and
member organizations from establishing or maintaining any telephonic or
electronic communication between the Floor and any other location
without Exchange approval. In addition, there are several supplementary
provisions that provide more detailed prescriptions for members and
member firms.
    Rule 36.10--NYSE Amex Equities advises members and member
organizations that the phone company will not install or disconnect any
line between the Floor and any other location without Exchange approval
and that such requests should be sent to the Exchange's Market
Operations Division. Rule 36.60--NYSE Amex Equities further prohibits
members and member organizations from listing a phone line in the name
of a non-member.
    Rule 36.20--NYSE Amex Equities provides that Floor brokers may
maintain a phone line at their booth locations on the Floor, or use an
Exchange issued and authorized portable phone, to communicate with non-
members off the Floor. Only Exchange issued and authorized portable
phones may be used on the Floor in accordance with the prescriptions of
Rule 36.21--NYSE Amex Equities, and the use of personal phones is
expressly prohibited. Rule 36.21--NYSE Amex Equities provides that
Floor brokers using an Exchange issued and authorized portable phone
may communicate directly from the point of sale on the Floor with
someone off-Floor. In addition to processing orders, Floor brokers may
also provide ``market look'' observations over the phone. When taking
orders over the phone, Floor brokers must comply with Rule 123(e)--NYSE
Amex Equities, which requires entry of the order into an electronic
system, as well as any and all other record retention requirements
under Rule 440--NYSE Amex Equities and SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
Exchange issued phones do not permit call-forwarding or call-waiting
and may not block a caller's identification. Floor brokers may not use
an Exchange authorized and provided portable phone used to trade
equities while on the Exchange's Options Trading Floor.

    Notwithstanding the prescriptions of Rule 36.20--NYSE Amex
Equities, Rule 36.23--NYSE Amex Equities provides that members and
employees of member organizations may use personal portable or wireless
communications devices, including phones, outside the Exchange's
Equities Trading Floor.\7\ In addition, members and employees of member
organizations may not use personal portable or wireless communication
devices on the Exchange's Options Trading Floor unless they are also
registered to trade options on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 6A--NYSE Amex Equities defines ``Trading Floor'' as the
restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange for the
trading of equities securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room''
and the ``Garage.'' The Exchange's Equities Trading Floor does not
include the areas where its listed options are traded, commonly
known as the ``Blue Room'' and the ``Extended Blue Room,'' also
known as the ``NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 36.30--NYSE Amex Equities provides that, subject to Exchange
approval, a DMM Unit may maintain a phone line at its post to
communicate with its off-Floor business operations and/or its clearing
firm. For trading purposes, a DMM Unit's phone line may only be used to
enter hedging orders through the firm's off-Floor office or clearing
firm, or through a member of an options or futures exchange as
permitted under Rules 98- and 105-NYSE Amex Equities.
    Under Rule 36.30--NYSE Amex Equities, a DMM Unit may also maintain
a wired or wireless device that has been registered with the Exchange,
such as a computer terminal or laptop, to communicate with the DMM
Unit's off-Floor algorithms. A DMM Unit using such a wired or wireless
device must certify that the device operates in accordance with all SEC
and Exchange rules, policies, and procedures. In addition, the DMM Unit
must create and maintain records of all messages generated by the wired
or wireless device in compliance with Rule 440--NYSE Amex Equities and
SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
    To address concerns regarding improper information sharing between
the Exchange's Equities Trading Floor and the adjacent Options Trading
Floor, Rule 36.70--NYSE Amex Equities prohibits members and member firm
employees from (i) using or possessing any wireless trading device that
may be used to view or enter orders into the Exchange's Equities
trading systems while on the Options Trading Floor, and (ii) using or
possessing any wireless trading device that may be used to view or
enter orders into the Exchange's Options trading systems while on the
Equities Trading Floor. These prohibitions apply to any and all
wireless trading devices, including devices issued by the Exchange or
NYSE, as well as devices that are proprietary to a member, member
organization or other entity.
    Finally, Rules 36.40- and 36.50- NYSE Amex Equities prescribe
certain timing and handling requirements for ``give-up'' or ``step
out'' transactions, whereby a member or member organization executes a
customer trade on behalf of another member. While not directly related
to member or member organization communications or the use and/or
possession of portable or wireless communication or trading devices,
these requirements are important for ensuring that members and member
organizations properly document these types of transactions.
Proposed Rule Change
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to add Rule 36--NYSE Amex
Equities to Part 1A of its Minor Rule Violation Plan under NYSE Amex
Disciplinary Rule 476A.
    Under Part 1A of the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan, the
Exchange may impose a fine, not to exceed $5,000, on any member, member
organization, principal executive, approved person, or registered or
non-registered employee of a member or member organization for a minor
violation of specified Exchange rules. Such fines provide a meaningful
sanction for rule violations where the facts and circumstances of the
violation do not warrant the initiation of a formal disciplinary
procedure under NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476, but do require a
regulatory response that is more significant than an admonition letter.
    Currently, because Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities is not part of the
Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan, if a member or member firm
employee were to violate the prohibitions set forth in Rule 36--NYSE
Amex Equities the Exchange would be limited to issuing either an
admonition letter or initiating formal proceedings under NYSE Amex
Disciplinary Rule 476. This is the case whether or not the member or
member firm employee violated the rule once or many times, and
regardless of whether he or she made an inadvertent error or an
intentional one.
    The Exchange believes that the current regulatory approach for
dealing with Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities violations is too inflexible.
The Exchange recognizes that members or member firm employees may
violate the prescriptions of Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities intentionally,
as well as accidentally or inadvertently. When a violation is
intentional, formal disciplinary measures in accordance with NYSE Amex
Disciplinary Rule 476 may be warranted. However, while an admonition
letter might be appropriate for an isolated accidental or inadvertent
violation, in other cases an admonition letter would be inadequate even
though a formal proceeding may not be warranted. The Exchange believes
that the addition of Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities to Part 1A of its
Minor Rule Violation Plan under NYSE Amex Disciplinary Rule 476A will
provide a more flexible and appropriate enforcement tool that preserves
the Exchange's discretion to seek formal discipline under appropriate
circumstances.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with, and furthers the objectives of, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change also furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ in that it provides for appropriate
discipline for violations of Exchange rules and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide
the Exchange with greater regulatory flexibility to enforce the
prescriptions of Rule 36--NYSE Amex Equities in a more informal manner
while also preserving the Exchange's discretion to seek formal
discipline for more serious transgressions as warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-44 and should be submitted on or before June 24, 2010.

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

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13339 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P