[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44500-44503]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109; FRL-9982-81--Region 8]

Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Standard for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). These submissions address the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is
approving portions of these infrastructure SIPs for the aforementioned
states as containing adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions
in the states will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA- EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    On June 4, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve submissions from
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming as meeting
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 25617). An explanation of the
CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the states' submissions, and
the EPA's rationale for approval of each submission were all provided
in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here.
The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on July 5, 2018.
The EPA received one comment letter from the North Dakota Department of
Health (NDDH), one comment letter from the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and six anonymous comments on the
proposal. The six anonymous comments lacked the required specificity to
the Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota or Wyoming SIP
submissions and the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). NDDH and WDEQ's comments are addressed below, while
the anonymous comments are not addressed because they fall outside the
scope of our proposed action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: NDDH stated that the 2010 and 2016 SO2
emissions levels for their state listed in the proposal rule's ``Table
1--SO2 Emission Trends'' (83 FR 25618) appeared too high,
and that the 2000-2016 SO2 reduction in the table for North
Dakota should be 79% rather than the 44% listed in this Table 1. In
addition to this recommended

correction, NDDH agreed with the EPA's proposed approval of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the state of
North Dakota, asserting that ``sources in North Dakota do not
significantly contribute to SO2 concentrations in
nonattainment or maintenance areas in other states.'' NDDH stated that
SO2 emissions in North Dakota continue to decrease,
specifically noting the shutdown of the coal-fired electric generating
unit Stanton Station in 2017, the forthcoming conversion of the
University of North Dakota heating plant from coal to natural gas
(permit currently under review), and the continued replacement of coal-
fired electrical generation by wind electrical generation as a portion
of total electrical generation in the state between 2012 and 2017. NDDH
also provided 2017 SO2 monitoring design values, showing
that these levels continue to be below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the state that the 2010 and 2016
SO2 emission levels for North Dakota listed in ``Table 1--
SO2 Emission Trends'' require correction. With regard to the
2016 SO2 emissions, we derived these emissions data from the
EPA's ``Air Pollutant Emissions Trends'' web page which was updated on
March 28, 2018,\1\ after the values for Table 1 had been calculated.
For this reason, the 2016 SO2 emissions levels and the 2000-
2016 SO2 emissions reduction for each state listed in Table
1 of the proposed rule are not consistent with those currently
presented on the EPA's ``Air Pollutant Emissions Trends'' web page.
Therefore, the EPA has recreated ``Table 1--SO2 Emission
Trends'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted at proposal, these values were derived using the
EPA's web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Specifically, a link on this web
page titled ``State Average Annual Emissions Trend'' which connected
to a spreadsheet. As shown on the ``Read Me'' page of this
spreadsheet, the ``draft state trends'' were updated on March 28,
2018. This update has caused the 2016 SO2 emissions
levels in the prior iteration of the spreadsheet to change for all
states.

                              Revised Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SO2 reduction,
              State                    2000            2005            2010            2016        2000-2016 (%)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................         118,528          90,577          73,075          41,415              65
Colorado........................         115,122          80,468          60,459          25,547              78
Idaho...........................          34,525          35,451          14,774          10,016              71
Iowa............................         265,005         222,419         142,738          56,139              79
Kansas..........................         148,416         199,006          80,267          18,624              87
Minnesota.......................         148,899         156,468          85,254          35,480              76
Montana.........................          57,517          42,085          26,869          18,338              68
Nebraska........................          86,894         121,785          77,898          54,934              37
New Mexico......................         164,631          47,671          23,651          17,959              89
North Dakota....................         275,138         159,221         119,322          58,058              79
Oklahoma........................         145,862         169,464         136,348          81,890              44
South Dakota....................          41,120          28,579          16,202           3,081              92
Utah............................          58,040          52,998          29,776          15,512              73
Wyoming.........................         141,439         122,453          91,022          51,769              63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also agrees with NDDH that the 2010 emissions value for
North Dakota was incorrect in ``Table 1--SO2 Emission
Trends.'' That value has been corrected in this revised version of the
table. The 2010 SO2 emissions levels for all other states,
as well as all 2000 and 2005 emissions levels, remain unchanged from
those in ``Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends'' in the proposed
rulemaking. The corrected values for North Dakota illustrate an even
greater decline in emissions of SO2 than that discussed in
the proposed rulemaking. The corrected values in this table are
therefore consistent with the EPA's analysis in its proposed
determination that emissions from North Dakota are not in violation of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    The EPA notes that North Dakota's comment refers to ``nonattainment
or maintenance areas'' (emphasis added) as part of its reiteration that
sources within the state do not have certain downwind impacts on other
states. The EPA has routinely interpreted the obligation to prohibit
emissions that ``significantly contribute to nonattainment'' of the
NAAQS in downwind states to be independent of formal designations
because exceedances can happen in any area. Similarly, the EPA does not
interpret the reference to ``maintenance'' under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be limited to maintenance areas, as this
provision requires evaluation of the potential impact of upwind
emissions on all areas that are currently measuring clean data, but may
have issues maintaining that air quality. Nothing in the CAA limits
states' obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to downwind areas
that have been formally designated.
    Regarding the additional information provided by NDDH to support
the EPA's proposed conclusion that the state meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA agrees
that this information is supportive of that conclusion.
    Comment: WDEQ expressed support of the EPA's proposed approval of
their SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However,
WDEQ disagreed with the EPA's statement in our proposal that
``Wyoming's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.''
83 FR 25631. WDEQ asserted that its weight of evidence demonstration
for prong 1, ``significant contribution to nonattainment,'' also
adequately addresses the requirements for prong 2, ``interference with
maintenance.'' WDEQ also stated that there were no other 2010
SO2 nonattainment or maintenance areas in neighboring states
to address at the time of its submission apart from the Billings,
Montana 2010 SO2 maintenance area, which WDEQ addressed in
that submission when the

area was still designated as nonattainment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted at proposal, the Billings 2010 SO2
maintenance area was in nonattainment status at the time of
Wyoming's March 6, 2015 submission, and was redesignated to
attainment on May 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees that WDEQ's analysis of potential
impact on the Billings area represents an independent analysis of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2. WDEQ's March 6, 2015 submission analyzed
Wyoming's potential impact on the Billings area and the lack of
additional nonattainment areas in surrounding states to determine
whether the Wyoming SIP meets the requirements of prong 1 and prong 2.
However, the court in North Carolina v. EPA, (531 F.3d 896, DC Cir.
2008) was specifically concerned with areas not designated
nonattainment when it rejected the view that ``a state can never
`interfere with maintenance' unless the EPA determines that at one
point it `contribute[d] significantly to nonattainment.' '' 531 F.3d at
910. The court pointed out that areas barely attaining the standard due
in part to emissions from upwind sources would have ``no recourse''
pursuant to such an interpretation. Id. In accordance with the court's
decision and as noted in our proposal, ``the EPA interprets CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential
impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring
clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality,
rather than only former nonattainment, and thus current maintenance,
areas.'' 83 FR 25621. For this reason, Wyoming's analysis of the
Billings area alone would not independently address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
prong 2, based on the EPA's longstanding interpretation of this
provision. Because WDEQ did not conduct such an analysis as part of its
weight of evidence, the EPA supplemented the state's analysis (see
proposal at 83 FR 25631) and proposed to find that Wyoming does not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
    With respect to the assertions WDEQ makes in its comments regarding
maintenance areas, the EPA does not interpret the reference to
``maintenance'' under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to be limited to
maintenance areas. As previously described, this provision requires
evaluation of the potential impact of upwind emissions on all areas
that are currently measuring clean data, but may have issues
maintaining that air quality. Nothing in the CAA limits states'
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to downwind areas that
have been formally designated.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the following submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Colorado's July 17, 2013 and February
16, 2018 submissions; Montana's July 15, 2013 submission; North
Dakota's March 7, 2013 submission; South Dakota's December 20, 2013
submission; and Wyoming's March 6, 2015 submission. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.352 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.352  Interstate transport.

* * * * *
    (f) Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the
Colorado Interstate Transport SIP regarding 2010 Standards, submitted
to EPA on July 17, 2013, and February 16, 2018, for both elements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

Subpart BB--Montana

0
3. Section 52.1393 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1393  Interstate transport requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) EPA is approving the Montana 2010 SO2 NAAQS
Infrastructure Certification, submitted to EPA on July 15, 2013, for
both elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

Subpart JJ--North Dakota

0
4. Section 52.1833 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1833  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) EPA is approving the North Dakota 2010 SO2 NAAQS
Infrastructure Certification, submitted to EPA on March 7, 2013, for
both elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

0
5. Section 52.2170, paragraph (e), is amended by adding table entry
XXII. to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            EPA effective   Final rule citation,
            Rule title               State effective date       date                date             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
XXII. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)    Submitted: 12/20/2013       10/1/2018  [Insert Federal
 Interstate Transport Requirements                                          Register citation],
 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.                                                    8/31/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
6. Section 52.2620, paragraph (e), is amended by adding table entry
(31) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State       EPA effective
                 Rule No.                             Rule title             effective date       date        Final rule citation, date      Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(31) XXXI................................  Interstate transport SIP for            3/6/2015       10/1/2018  [Insert Federal Register
                                            Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)                                        citation], 8/31/2018.
                                            prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2
                                            NAAQS..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-18892 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51087-51089]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65119; File No. SR-OCC-2011-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise Its By-Laws and
Rules To Establish a Clearing Fund Amount Intended To Support Losses
Under a Defined Set of Default Scenarios

August 12, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 3, 2011, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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 primarily by OCC. 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 proposed rule change would change the method by which the size
of OCC's clearing fund is determined.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change would revise OCC's By-Laws and Rules to
establish the size of OCC's clearing fund as the amount that is
required within a confidence level selected by OCC to sustain possible
loss under a defined set of scenarios as determined by OCC. The
proposed rule change replaces a previously proposed rule change which
was withdrawn by OCC.\4\ Currently the size of the clearing fund is
calculated each month and is equal to a fixed percentage of the average
total daily margin requirement for the preceding month provided that
this calculation results in a clearing fund of $1 billion or more.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release 34-62371 (June 24, 2010), 75
FR 37864 (June 30, 2010) (SR-OCC-2010-04). OCC withdrew its proposed
rule change regarding clearing fund sizing in order to submit this
proposed rule change which: Incorporates the amendments that were
proposed to the previous proposed rule change; discusses the
adaptation of the methodology underlying the formula change made to
incorporate the effects of implementing the rule changes described
in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58158 (July 15, 2008), 73
FR 42646 (July 22, 2008) (SR-OCC-2007-20) (``Collateral in Margins
Filing''); provides updated comparative data about the impact of the
proposed clearing fund sizing formula; and makes additional changes
to improve the overall readability of certain proposed rule text.
    \5\ If the calculation does not result in a clearing fund of $1
billion or more, the percentage that results in a fund level of at
least $1 billion is applied provided that in no event will the
percentage exceed 7%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed formula for determining the size of the clearing
fund, the amount of the fund would be equal to the larger of the amount
of the charge to the fund that would result from (i) A default by the
single ``clearing member group'' whose default would be likely to
result in the largest draw against the clearing fund or (ii) an event
involving the near-simultaneous default of two randomly-selected
``clearing member groups,'' in each case as calculated by OCC with a
specified confidence level. Initially, the confidence levels employed
by OCC in calculating the charge likely to result from a default by
OCC's largest ``clearing member group'' and the default of two
randomly-selected ``clearing member groups'' would be 99% and 99.9%,
respectively.\6\ However, OCC would have the discretion to employ
different confidence levels in these calculations in the future
provided that OCC would not employ confidence levels of less than 99%
without filing a rule change with the Commission.\7\ The size of the
clearing fund would continue to be recalculated monthly based on a
monthly averaging of daily calculations for the previous month and
subject to a

requirement that the total clearing fund be not less than $1
billion.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Clearing member group'' will be defined in Article I
(``Definitions'') of OCC's By-Laws to mean ``a Clearing Member and
any Member Affiliates of such Clearing Member.''
    \7\ Proposed Interpretation and Policy .02 to OCC Rule 1001.
    \8\ Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to OCC Rule 1001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new formula is designed to more directly take into account
anticipated losses resulting from the clearing member default scenarios
described above and thereby establish the clearing fund at a size that
is sufficient to cover such losses without relying on any rights of OCC
to require clearing members to replenish the clearing fund. The formula
is generally consistent with the current ``Recommendations for Central
Counterparties'' published by the Bank for International Settlements
and the International Organization of Securities Commissioners. Among
the recommendations in the publication are that a clearing organization
``maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a
default by the clearing member to which it has the largest exposure in
extreme but plausible market conditions.'' The publication further
advises clearing organizations to plan for the possibility of a default
by two or more clearing members in a short time frame.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Bank for International Settlements and International
Organization of Securities Commissions, Recommendations for Central
Counterparties (November 2004), available at http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD176.pdf (the``2004 Recommendations'').
OCC notes that in December 2009 the Committee on Payment and
Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements
(``CPSS'') and the Technical Committee of the International
Organization of Securities Commissions (``IOSCO'') began a
comprehensive review of the 2004 Recommendations in order to
strengthen and clarify such recommendations based on experience and
lessons learned from the recent financial crisis. In March 2011, the
CPSS and IOSCO published for comment the results of such review with
comments requested by July 29, 2011. See Bank for International
Settlements and International Organization of Securities
Commissions, Principles for financial market infrastructures (March
2011), available at http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD350.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering whether to revise the formula for determining the
size of the clearing fund, OCC compared the size of the clearing fund
that would have resulted from application of the revised formula to the
actual size of the clearing fund for each month from February 2008
through September 2009. This analysis revealed that for this time
period the size of the clearing fund under the revised formula would
have been on average 10% larger than under the current formula. In
September and October 2008, which were two months of extreme volatility
in the U.S. securities markets, the revised formula would have resulted
in a clearing fund size of approximately 31% and 27% greater than under
the current formula. The average monthly change in the size of the
clearing fund and the standard deviation of clearing fund size from
month to month for this time period under the two formulas were broadly
similar.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Note the comparative data described in this paragraph was
obtained using confidence levels set at 99% and above. OCC estimates
that using only a 99% confidence level for the months referenced
would have lowered by an average of approximately \1/2\% the total
size of the clearing fund as determined by the proposed methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since deciding in September 2009 that it wished to adopt the
revised formula, OCC has continued to compare the size of the clearing
fund under the revised formula with the size under the current formula.
During 2010 the methodology underlying the revised formula was adapted
to incorporate the effects of the implementation of the rule changes
described in the Collateral in Margins Filing.\11\ Under those changes,
certain types of securities accepted as collateral are analyzed for
margin purposes together with positions in cleared products as a single
portfolio, affording a more accurate measurement of risk. During the
period February 2008 through January 2010 (i.e., prior to the
implementation of the Collateral in Margins Filing) for which
comparative data is available, the size of the clearing fund under the
revised formula would have been on average 3% larger than under the
current formula. Including also the further months of July, 2010
through June, 2011 (i.e., since the implementation of the Collateral in
Margins Filing) for which comparative data is available, the
corresponding percentage increase is 2%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58158 (July 15,
2008), 73 FR 42646 (July 22, 2008) (SR-OCC-2007-20). See supra note
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing formula for determining the size of the clearing fund
was intended to establish the fund at a level reasonably designed to
cover losses resulting from one or more clearing member defaults, and
OCC believes that it has served that purpose adequately. Nevertheless,
OCC believes that the proposed amended formula is a better predictor of
the actual losses that would be likely to result from such defaults.
The existing formula takes potential losses into account only
indirectly by setting the size of the clearing fund as a percentage of
average margin requirements. The revised formula would directly take
into account various types of default scenarios and therefore in OCC's
view would be more likely to result in a level for the clearing fund
that is adequate in the event such scenarios occur. The new formula
would therefore more closely align the size of the clearing fund with
its intended purpose of absorbing losses resulting from clearing member
defaults and would thereby avoid a disruption of the clearance process
even during extreme market conditions.
    Article VIII, Section 6 of OCC's By-Laws, which obligates clearing
members to make good deficiencies in their clearing fund deposits
resulting from pro rata charges or otherwise (subject to a cap equal to
100% of a clearing member's then required deposit if it promptly
withdraws from membership and closes out or transfers its open
positions) would remain unchanged.
    The specific amendments proposed to OCC's By-Laws and Rules to
facilitate the proposed changes to its clearing fund calculation can be
found at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_10.pdf.
    If approved by the Commission, OCC would implement the revised
formula for determining the size of its clearing fund sixty days after
notice to its clearing members.
2. Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because the proposed rule changes would
facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions by creating a more direct correlation between the clearing
fund size and estimated losses from a defined set of default scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by OCC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) As the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes

its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will: (A) By order approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change or (B) institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number SR-OCC-2011-10 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-OCC-2011-10. 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 Section, 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 filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_03.pdf. 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-OCC-2011-10 and should be submitted on or before
September 7, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary .
[FR Doc. 2011-20955 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44906-44908]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72681; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Removing Building Access and
Other Restrictions on Traders Conducting Certain Futures and Options
Trading on ICE Futures U.S., Inc. in Space Rented From the Exchange

July 28, 2014.
    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 July 15, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 remove building access and other
restrictions on traders conducting certain futures and options trading
on ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (``IFUS'') \4\ in space rented from the
Exchange (the ``IFUS Trading Floor''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IFUS is a Designated Contract Market pursuant to the
Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and is regulated by the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposes to remove the building access and other
restrictions on the IFUS traders conducting certain futures and options
trading on the IFUS Trading Floor, currently located in Exchange
facilities at 20 Broad Street (the ``IFUS Traders'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On November 13, 2013, pursuant to the Amended and Restated
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 19, 2013, by and
among IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. ('' ICE ''),
IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. (the ``Company''), NYSE
Euronext, Braves Merger Sub, Inc. (``Braves Merger Sub'') and NYSE
Euronext Holdings LLC (formerly known as Baseball Merger Sub, LLC),
Braves Merger Sub was merged with and into ICE and NYSE Euronext was
merged with and into NYSE Euronext Holdings (the ``Mergers''). As a
result of the Mergers, NYSE Euronext and ICE are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company. NYSE Euronext owns 100% of the equity
interest of NYSE Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (``NYSE
Group''), which in turn directly or indirectly owns, among other
things, 100% of the equity interest of the Exchange. IFUS is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On February 13, 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
relocate trading of certain futures and options contracts conducted on
IFUS from rented space at the New York Mercantile Exchange (``NYMEX'')
to trading space at 20 Broad Street New York, New York, commonly known
as the ``Blue Room'', and to amend NYSE Rule 6A, which defines the
terms ``Trading Floor'' and ``NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor'' (the
``Original Filing'').\6\ The Original Filing stated that the IFUS
Traders relocating to 20 Broad Street and their clerical employees \7\
would only utilize the 18 Broad Street entrance to access the Blue Room
\8\ and, once inside, be prohibited from entering the Main Room, where
most of the NYSE and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Equities Floor brokers
and all NYSE and NYSE MKT Equities Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'')
are located, as well as the NYSE Amex Options trading floor. In
addition, the Original Filing represented that the IFUS Traders would
sit together in dedicated booth space approximately 40 feet long by 10
feet wide with privacy barriers consisting of eight foot walls on both
sides except for the two gated and badge access entry and exit security
doors at the front and back of the booth, which are four feet high. A
compliance officer from IFUS Market Regulation is also present in the
Blue Room performing on-site surveillance on a regular basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68996 (February 27,
2013), 78 FR 14378 (March 5, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-13).
    \7\ Currently, there are 24 IFUS Traders and 13 clerical staff
on the IFUS Trading Floor. At the time of the Original Filing, there
were 40 IFUS Traders.
    \8\ Specifically, the IFUS Traders must use the 18 Broad Street
entrance elevator and enter the Trading Floor using the turnstile
nearest the Blue Room. The Exchange has been monitoring badge swipes
at other locations to identify instances where the IFUS Traders
utilize a different entrance and referring those findings to IFUS
Compliance for appropriate action. Last year, there were
approximately 22 instances in which individual IFUS Traders or their
clerical staff used an entrance or turnstile other than 18 Broad
entrance and turnstiles authorized for their use. However, IFUS
Compliance found that all of these were inadvertent use of either of
a wrong turnstile for the 18 Broad St. entrance, another entrance
necessitated for use when gaining visitor access or when the 18
Broad St. entrance was temporarily inaccessible, or to access a
bathroom, and therefore, chose not to take any disciplinary action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
clarify that the IFUS Traders may, on an as needed basis and only prior
to 7 a.m., access the Blue Room via the Exchange's 11 Wall Street
facilities, which would entail walking through the Main Room to access
the Blue Room, and that the IFUS Traders may access the Blue Room via
the Exchange's 11 Wall Street facilities on days that the Exchange is
closed (the ``Supplemental Filing'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Certain of the IFUS Traders conduct business on foreign
markets on Exchange holidays. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 69763 (June 13, 2013), 78 FR 37265 (June 20, 2013) (SR-NYSE-
2013-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange now proposes to remove certain restrictions on the
IFUS Traders set forth in the Original and Supplemental Filings. In
particular, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the building access
restrictions, which would allow the IFUS Traders to enter the
Exchange's facilities from either the 11 Wall Street or 18 Broad Street
entrances. The Exchange further proposes to eliminate the restriction
on the IFUS Traders entering or crossing the Main Room in order to
access the IFUS Trading Floor. Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove
the gated and badge access entry and exit security doors at the front
and back of the IFUS Traders' booth (the ``Proposal'').
    The Exchange does not believe that removing the restrictions on the
IFUS Traders entering or crossing the Main Room would provide the IFUS
Traders with an unfair competitive advantage over other market
participants. As set forth in the previous filings, IFUS trades its
products exclusively on an electronic trading platform. Notwithstanding
that there is still a physical IFUS Trading Floor, there is no open
outcry trading on

that floor. IFUS lists and trades futures and options on futures on
cotton, frozen concentrated orange juice, coffee, sugar, cocoa, energy,
foreign currencies, and certain Russell Indices \10\ (the ``IFUS
Contracts''). The 24 IFUS Traders (down from 40 last year) \11\ utilize
the IFUS Trading Floor as a place from which they may accept customer
orders for IFUS Contracts by telephone or electronically and enter such
orders electronically to the IFUS trading platform. IFUS Traders are
prohibited by IFUS rules from orally discussing orders or transactions
with each other while on the IFUS Trading Floor. Instead,
communications between IFUS Traders on the IFUS Trading Floor must be
made via instant message, email, or recorded telephone line. Order
tickets are prepared and time-stamped for each customer order. IFUS
Traders may also enter orders electronically for their own proprietary
account. Four of the 24 IFUS Traders engage in proprietary-only
trading, while the rest enter customer orders for execution and engage
in proprietary trading on IFUS. While IFUS Traders effect transactions
in all IFUS Contracts, they predominantly trade options on cotton
futures.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These include the Russell 2000, Russell 1000, and Russell
Value and Growth, all of which qualify as broad-based indices. The
Exchange understands, however, that the IFUS Traders trade only a
small volume of the Russell products and, of that small volume, most
is in the Russell 2000 mini-contracts.
    \11\ No IFUS Traders are members of the Exchange, NYSE MKT or
NYSE Amex Options.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68996 (February
27, 2013), 78 FR 14378 (March 5, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IFUS traders can only conduct trading in IFUS products from within
IFUS Trading Floor space via terminals located in the IFUS Trading
Floor; they do not have wireless hand-held devices. Accordingly, the
IFUS Traders could not conduct any trading in futures from any other
location, for example, at an equities trading post in the Main Room. In
addition, none of the IFUS Traders are registered to trade any of the
securities traded on the Exchange, nor does any have the capability to
enter orders in Exchange-traded securities from the IFUS Trading Floor
via the IFUS electronic trading system.
    The Exchange further notes that there is a limited nexus between
products that trade on IFUS and those that trade on the Exchange. The
only IFUS Contracts that are related to Exchange-traded products are
futures and options on futures on certain Russell indexes, all of which
are broad-based indexes as defined in Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\13\ As the Commission previously
found, a market participant's ability to manipulate the price of broad-
based ETFs, Trust Issued Receipts or related options is limited.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(A). IFUS product offerings have
historically been benchmark futures and options contracts relating
to agricultural products, currencies, and broad-based market
indexes. There are no plans to offer single stock futures on IFUS.
    \14\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46213 (July 16, 2002) (SR-Amex
2002-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, given that IFUS Traders represent only a small proportion
of IFUS's total trading volume, the Exchange does not believe IFUS
Traders would be in possession of any non-public information that could
be used by Exchange members to their advantage or to gain an unfair
competitive advantage over other market participants. As noted in the
previous filings, approximately 83% of IFUS's total daily contract
volume is in IFUS energy contracts. The IFUS Traders transact less than
5% of the 17% of IFUS's average daily volume that is not related to
energy contracts and a fraction of 1% of the total average daily IFUS
volume (which includes the energy contracts transacted on IFUS).
Further, pricing information about the products traded on the IFUS
Trading Floor--cotton, frozen concentrated orange juice, coffee, sugar,
cocoa, energy, broad-based equity indices and foreign currencies--is
contemporaneously and publicly available on Bloomberg and other
quotation reporting systems. To the extent there is any correlation
between the price movements of the products traded on the IFUS Trading
Floor and Exchange-listed companies with exposure to those commodity-
based products, the Exchange notes that such information is publicly
available and IFUS Traders are not in possession of any non-public
information regarding pricing of such products that could be used
improperly by the IFUS Traders or Exchange members.
    Finally, the Exchange's experience with the IFUS Trading Floor the
past year has not given the Exchange reason to believe that there is an
increased likelihood of potentially collusive trading. To date, the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') has not
identified any regulatory or other concerns about the IFUS Traders,
identified suspicious activity or behavior, or identified instances
where confidential order information was compromised or inappropriately
used.
    The Exchange further notes that important safeguards will remain in
place. The IFUS Traders will continue to sit together in segregated
booth space with privacy barriers to reduce the likelihood that trading
screens can be viewed or conversations overheard between firms and
traders. An IFUS Market Regulation compliance officer will continue to
be present performing on-site surveillance on a regular basis. The
Exchange's equities and options on-Floor surveillance staff will also
continue to be located near the IFUS Trading Floor. Moreover, FINRA has
been provided with the names of the IFUS Traders to assist in
identifying any potentially violative trading involving the IFUS
Traders.\15\ The Exchange has reminded its members and member
organizations to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic order and
trade information, and that members and employees of member
organizations should not engage in any trading, order or market related
communications with the IFUS Traders or their clerical staff.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Providing the names of the IFUS Traders to FINRA was for
the purpose of regulatory information sharing. Neither the Exchange
nor FINRA will be responsible for regulating or surveilling the IFUS
Traders' activity, and the IFUS Traders are not subject to the
Exchange's jurisdiction. Rather, the IFUS Traders will continue to
be regulated by IFUS.
    \16\ See Member Education Bulletin 2013-5 (March 20, 2013),
available at http://www.nyse.com/nysenotices/nyse/education-bulletins/pdf.action?memo_id=2013-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, based on the limited trading conducted by the IFUS
Traders, the extremely negligible trading in related products, the
experience with the IFUS Trading Floor during the past year and the
significant controls that will remain in place, the Exchange does not
believe that prescribing the manner in which the IFUS Traders enter the
Exchange's facilities or prohibiting the IFUS Traders from entering or
crossing the Main Room on the way to the IFUS Trading Floor serves a
necessary regulatory purpose.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the Proposal is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\18\ 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, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
Proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would eliminate restrictions on the manner that IFUS Traders
may access the IFUS Trading Floor that are not necessary for the
protection of investors or the public interest given that the only
securities related to IFUS Contracts are securities based on broad-
based indexes. The Exchange further believes that eliminating the
building access and other restrictions will enable IFUS Traders to
efficiently and effectively conduct business on the IFUS Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the Proposal will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is designed to
promote competition by providing the Exchange additional flexibility to
maximize the use of its trading floor space.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSE-2014-39 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-NYSE-2014-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2014-39 and should be submitted on or before August
22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18116 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30560-30563]
[DOCID:fr28my08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0115]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Escorted Vessels, Charleston, SC, Captain of the
Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone around any
vessel being escorted by one or more Coast Guard, State, or local law
enforcement assets on the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port
Zone, Charleston, South Carolina. This action is necessary to ensure
the safe transit of escorted vessels as well as the safety and security
of personnel and port facilities. No vessel or person is allowed inside
the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a
designated representative.

DATES: This interim rule is effective May 28, 2008. Comments and
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before
June 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0115 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call LT Calvin Summers at Sector Charleston<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0115), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able
to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0115)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.''. You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or the Coast Guard Sector Charleston (WWM), 196 Tradd Street,
Charleston, South Carolina 29401 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and delaying
the effective date would be contrary to public interest since the
security zones around escorted vessels are necessary to ensure the safe
transit of the escorted vessels as well as the public. Certain vessel
movements are more vulnerable to terrorist acts and it would be
contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM that would delay the
effective date of this rule. The Coast Guard coordinates escorts for
vessels in the Captain of the Port Zone Charleston, South Carolina for
the port's safety and security. Recently, recreational boaters have
endangered themselves and others by not following the verbal guidance
of on-scene law enforcement officials. To ensure safe boating, it is
imperative that a standard exclusionary zone be broadcast and safe
speeds be followed for all escorted vessels.
    For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for
development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the
United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose
presence or

movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those
for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to
national security. The President of the United States has found that
the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered
following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sep.
3, 2002 and 72 FR 54205, Sep. 21, 2007). Additionally, national
security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future
terrorist attacks are likely.
    The ports within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Charleston
frequently receive vessels that require additional security, including,
but not limited to, vessels carrying sensitive Department of Defense
cargoes, vessels carrying dangerous cargoes, and foreign naval vessels.
The COTP has determined that these vessels have a significant
vulnerability to subversive activity by other vessels or persons, or,
in some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public within
the COTP Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-15. This rule enables the
COTP Charleston to provide effective port security, while minimizing
the public's confusion and easing the administrative burden of
implementing separate temporary security zone rules for each escorted
vessel.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone that prohibits persons and
vessels from coming within 300 yards of all escorted vessels within the
navigable waters of the COTP Charleston unless authorized by the Coast
Guard COTP, or a COTP designated representative.
    Persons or vessels that receive permission to enter the security
zone must proceed at a minimum safe speed and must comply with all
orders issued by the COTP or a designated representative. No vessel or
person may come within 50 yards of any escorted vessel. An escorted
vessel will be defined as a vessel, other than a large U.S. naval
vessel as defined in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is accompanied by one or
more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency assets clearly identifiable by lights, vessel
markings, or with agency insignia as listed below:
    Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard
insignia.
    State and/or local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable
agency markings and/or equipment associated with the agency.
    When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual
indications such as lights or buoys may be used. In all cases,
broadcast notice to mariners will be issued to advise mariners of these
restrictions.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The limited geographic area
impacted by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine
operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports
within the Captain of the Port Zone Charleston.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving ample space for
vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly
impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners
will be notified of the zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where
such space is not available and security conditions permit, the COTP
will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit
through the zones as needed.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR part 165

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

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add 165.769 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.769  Security Zone; Escorted Vessels, Charleston, South
Carolina, Captain of the Port.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    COTP means Captain of the Port Charleston, SC.
    Designated representatives means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the COTP, in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    Escorted vessel means a vessel, other than a large U.S. naval
vessel as defined in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is accompanied by one or
more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency assets clearly identifiable by lights, vessel
markings, or with agency insignia as listed below:
    Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard
insignia.
    State and/or local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable
agency markings and/or equipment associated with the agency.
    When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual
indications such as lights or buoys may be used. In all cases,
broadcast notice to mariners will be issued to advise mariners of these
restrictions.
    Minimum safe speed means the speed at which a vessel proceeds when
it is fully off plane, completely settled in the water and not creating
excessive wake. Due to the different speeds at which vessels of
different sizes and configurations may travel while in compliance with
this definition, no specific speed is assigned to minimum safe speed.
In no instance should minimum safe speed be interpreted as a speed less
than that required for a particular vessel to maintain steerageway. A
vessel is not proceeding at minimum safe speed if it is:
    (1) On a plane;
    (2) In the process of coming up onto or coming off a plane; or
    (3) Creating an excessive wake.
    (b) Regulated Area. All navigable waters, as defined in 33 CFR
2.36, within the Captain of the Port Zone, Charleston, South Carolina
33 CFR 3.35-15.
    (c) Security Zone. A 300-yard security zone is established around
each escorted vessel within the regulated area described in paragraph
(b) of this section. This is a moving security zone when the escorted
vessel is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the escorted vessel
is anchored or moored. A security zone will not extend beyond the
boundary of the regulated area in this section.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations for security zones
contained in Sec.  165.33 of this part applies to this section.
    (2) A vessel may request the permission of the COTP Charleston or a
designated representative to enter the security zone described in
paragraph (c) of this section. If permitted to enter the security zone,
a vessel must proceed at the minimum safe speed and must comply with
the orders of the COTP or a designated representative. No vessel or
person may enter the inner 50-yard portion of the security zone closest
to the vessel.
    (e) Notice of Security Zone. The COTP will inform the public of the
existence or status of the security zones around escorted vessels in
the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Coast Guard assets
or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets will be
clearly identified by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia.
When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual indications
such as lights or buoys may be used.

    (f) Contact Information. The COTP Charleston may be reached via
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any on scene Coast Guard or designated
representative assets may be reached via VHF-FM channel 16.

    Dated: May 15, 2008.
M. F. McAllister,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston, South
Carolina.
[FR Doc. E8-11863 Filed 5-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Subpart I  -  Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

FROM:	Alexis McKittrick, EPA/OAR/CCD

TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028

DATE:	August 27, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA conducted searches and reviews of methods to address the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requirements on the use of voluntary consensus standards (VCS).  The NTTAA directs EPA to use VCS in regulatory and procurement activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This memorandum documents the results of the VCS searches and reviews to determine if VCS are available and practical for use in lieu of stationary source methods cited in the Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I  -  Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The EPA is proposing to include a stack testing option that would involve using the following EPA reference methods:

       Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in the exhaust stacks.
       Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in the exhaust stacks.
       Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, to determine the gas molecular weight of the exhaust using the same sampling site and at the same time as the fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-GHG) sampling is performed.
       Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, to measure gas moisture content in the exhaust stacks.
       Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to perform field validations of alternative methods of measuring F-GHG emissions and abatement system destruction or removal efficiency (DRE).
       Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to measure the concentration of F-GHG in the stack exhaust.

In 1998, the EPA began implementing the requirements of the NTTAA by conducting searches to identify VCS. Searches continue to be performed to meet the requirements of the NTTAA. While we have made a reasonable effort to identify and evaluate potentially practical VCS, our findings do not necessarily represent all potential alternative standards which may exist.

The EPA participates in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), which is one of the most active VCS organizations on emissions testing, and has been invited to participate in the USA Technical Advisory Group for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) relating to emissions monitoring. We expect these additional efforts will help us to support a periodic review of all EPA reference methods and performance standards for possible incorporation by reference (IBR) of VCS in lieu of or as alternatives to EPA procedures. We anticipate that these activities will provide an opportunity for further review, consideration and possible IBR of VCS overlooked in the National Standards Service Network (NSSN) searches or finalized after Federal agency review in the EPA rulemaking process.

We conducted searches for the Proposed Amendments for Subpart I  -  Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, including the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), and accessed and searched their databases.

Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, and EPA Methods 301 and 320 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, or 3A.

During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's referenced method, the EPA considered it as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for the proposed rule. The review required significant method validation data which meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods, or a scientific, engineering, and policy evaluation to determine if it is equivalent to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality if additional information becomes available for a particular VCS.

The search identified 12 VCS that were potentially applicable for use in the proposed rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that the 12 potential VSC identified for measuring emissions of pollutants subject to Subpart I would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. These 12 methods are listed in Table 1 of this memorandum, along with EPA review comments.

The EPA also examined the ISMI 2009 Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment  -  Revision 2, as a replacement for the ISMI 2006 Guideline that is referenced in the EPA protocol for determining abatement system DRE (the DRE protocol is incorporated by reference for use in subpart I).  The EPA did not propose using of the entire ISMI 2009 Guideline as an alternative to the ISMI 2006 Guideline because only portions of the ISMI 2006 and 2009 Guidelines are relevant to determining abatement system DRE, and because industry members and the ISMI have identified additional changes that will be incorporated into a future version of the ISMI Guideline. However, EPA considered portions of the 2009 ISMI Guideline, with modifications, that may be used as an alternative to the ISMI 2006 Guideline procedures referenced in the EPA's DRE Protocol to provide flexibility and reduce burden, and has incorporated these adapted portions into the proposed rule. The 2009 ISMI Guideline includes a method to measure abatement system flow and to account for dilution that may occur between the inlet and out of the abatement system by measuring the change in concentration of a non-reactive tracer gas introduced into to the abatement system flow. To ensure thorough mixing of the tracer, the 2009 ISMI Guideline requires sources to measure the concentration at least eight duct diameters downstream of the injection site. Because of the presence of short ducts in POU abatement systems, these specifications would not be appropriate for several sources. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that facilities use procedures adapted from Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure), in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4, to establish that the injected tracer is well mixed in the duct system and is not stratified (i.e., poorly mixed). The relevant portions of the ISMI 2009 Guideline and the adaptation of the procedures from Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E are incorporated into proposed Appendix A to subpart I.

Table 1. List of Voluntary Consensus Standards Not Applicable to the Proposed Amendments to Subpart I  -  Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
EPA Standard Reference Method(s)
Similar Voluntary Consensus Standard
EPA's Comments on VCS
EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, 4
ASTM D3154-00 (2006)  -  Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method)
This method is impractical as an alternative to EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, and 3B for the purposes of the proposed rule because the standard appears to lack in quality control and quality assurance requirements. Specifically, ASTM D3154 does not include the following: (1) proof that openings of standard pitot tubes have not plugged during the test; (2) if differential pressure gauges other than inclined manometers (e.g., magnehelic gauges) are used, their calibration must be checked after each test series; and (3) the frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature sensors.
EPA Method 2
ASTM D3464-96 (2007)  -  Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer
The applicability specifications in this ASTM standard are not clearly defined, e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits.  Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately addressed by the standard, limit EPA's ability to make a definitive comparison of the method in these areas.
EPA Method 2
ASTM D3796-90 (2004)  -  Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes
This ASTM method is intended to be a calibration procedure for the S-type pitot tube and not a method by which stack gas velocity and/or volumetric flowrates can be measured as in EPA Method 2. The calibration procedure does not require an inclined manometer and does not specify any additional accuracy verifications for the use of other types of differential pressure gauges.
EPA Methods 2, 3A, 4
ASME B133.9-1994 (2004)  -  Measurement of Exhaust Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbine Engines (Revision of ANSI [American National Standards Institute] B122.9-1979)
This method is impractical as an alternative to EPA Methods 2, 3A, and 4 in the proposed rule. This method applies to engines that operate on natural gas and liquid distillate fuels, and is not a quantitative method.
EPA Method 3A
ASTM D5835-95 (2001)  -  Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration

ISO 10396:1993  -  Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations
These standards are impractical alternatives to EPA Method 3A for the purposes of the proposed rule because they lack in detail and quality assurance/quality control requirements. Specifically, these two standards do not include the following: (1) sensitivity of the method; (2) acceptable levels of analyzer calibration error; (3) acceptable levels of sampling system bias; (4) zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and required testing frequency; (5) a method to test the interference response of the analyzer; (6) procedures to determine the minimum sampling time per run and minimum measurement time; and (7) specifications for data recorders, in terms of resolution and recording intervals.
EPA Method 3A
ISO 12039:2001  -  Stationary Source Emissions  -  Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen  -  Automated Methods
This method is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3A. This ISO standard is similar to EPA Method 3A but is missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required by ISO 12039:2001 does not include a 3-way calibration valve assembly or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039:2001 only specifies a two-point calibration while EPA Method 3A specifies a three-point calibration.  Also, ISO 12039:2001 does not specify performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or sampling system bias tests as in the EPA method, although checks of these quality control features are required by the ISO standard.
EPA Methods 3A and 3B
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10  -  Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
This method is not acceptable as a substitute for EPA Method 3A and 3B for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This ANSI/ASME standard includes manual and instrumental methods. The instrument methods are only general descriptions of procedures and are not true methods. Therefore, while some of the manual methods in the ANSI/ASME standard are acceptable alternatives to EPA methods, the instrumental procedures are not.
EPA Method 3A
ASTM D6522-00 (2005)  -  Standard Test Method for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers
This method is impractical as an alternative to Method 3A in the proposed rule. This method applies to engines, turbines, and boilers and process heaters that operate on natural gas.
EPA Method 3A
CAN/CSA [Canadian Standards Association] Z223.2-M86 (1999)  -  Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams
This standard is impractical as a substitute for EPA Method 3A, since it does not include quantitative specifications for measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance characteristics that are provided are non-mandatory and also do not provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For example, the zero and span/calibration drift is only checked weekly, whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run.
EPA Method 301
ASTM D4855-97 (2002)  -  Standard Practice for Comparing Test Methods
This ASTM standard is equivalent to EPA Method 301 in its statistical design and decision criteria, but is less prescriptive than Method 301 for many procedures, and is not being proposed as an alternative to Method 301. For example, the ASTM standard does not require the use of a t-test explicitly to test the precision of the alternative method, but instead states that a t-test or F-test should be used, as appropriate. The primary difference between ASTM D4855-97 and EPA Method 301, that makes the ASTM standard not acceptable as a complete alternative to the EPA method, is that the ASTM method addresses the testing of materials rather than environmental samples. Because of this difference, the ASTM standard does not prescribe the use of paired samples as in the EPA method. This feature of EPA Method 301 is critical to its success and the acceptability of an alternative standard.
EPA Method 320
ASTM D6348 - 03 (2010), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy
This test method employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source exhaust to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds that (1) have sufficient vapor pressure to be transported to the FTIR spectrometer and (2) absorb a sufficient amount of infrared radiation to be detected. Because emissions from the electronics manufacturing industry contain F-GHG in relatively low concentrations, and because all data previously received in support of stack testing used EPA Method 320, the EPA would need to consider more supporting data before approving ASTM D6348 as an alternative to EPA Method 320.