[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45259-45262]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14998]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-524, OMB Control No. 3235-0582]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form N-PX

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')

has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    On November 2, 2022, the Commission adopted rule and form
amendments (``Amendments'') that would enhance the information funds
report on Form N-PX and make that information easier to analyze.\1\ The
Commission also adopted a new rule that would require an institutional
investment manager subject to section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') to report annually on Form N-PX how it
voted proxies relating to executive compensation matters, as required
by section 14A of the Exchange Act. The Amendments require funds (and,
for executive compensation matters, institutional investment managers)
to (i) identify voting matters using language from the issuer's form of
proxy (with certain exceptions for issuers who are not subject to the
Commission's proxy rules) and categorize their votes from a list of
categories; (ii) disclose quantitative information regarding the number
of votes cast (or instructed to be cast) and the number of shares not
voted because they are out on loan; and (iii) file reports in an XML
structured data language using a standardized format. In addition, the
Amendments included changes to Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-3 that require
funds, if they have a website, to disclose that their proxy voting
records are publicly available on or through their websites, free of
charge, and to make this information available on or through its
website as soon as reasonably practicable after filing a report on Form
N-PX with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Enhanced Reporting of Proxy Votes by Registered Management
Investment Companies; Reporting of Executive Compensation Votes by
Institutional Investment Managers, Investment Company Release No.
34745 (November 2, 2022) [87 FR 78770 (Dec. 22, 2022)] (``Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of Form N-PX is to meet the filing and disclosure
requirements of rules under the Act and also to enable funds to provide
investors with information necessary to evaluate overall patterns in
the manager's voting behavior. This information collection is primarily
for the use and benefit of investors. The information filed with the
Commission also permits the verification of compliance with securities
law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination
of the information. Due to the Amendments, Form N-PX will also be used
by institutional investment managers to meet the filing and disclosure
requirements of section 14A under the Exchange Act.
    The table below summarizes our estimates associated with the
amendments to Form N-PX that the Amendments address:
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY23.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY23.009

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    The table above summarizes our PRA initial and ongoing annual
burden estimates associated with Form N-PX, as amended. In the
aggregate, we estimate the total annual burden to comply with amended
Form N-PX to be 380,741 hours, with an average external cost of
$36,141,445.
    Compliance with Form N-PX is mandatory. Responses to the collection
of information requirements will not be kept confidential.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by August 14, 2023 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: July 11, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14998 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56277-56280]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19782]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 55

[EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0400; FRL 9785-02-R2]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for
New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an
update to a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air
Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25
miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to
remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore
area (COA), as mandated by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The portion of the
OCS air regulations that is being updated here pertains to the
requirements for OCS sources for which the State of New York is the
COA. The intended effect of updating the OCS requirements for the State
of New York is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance
with the requirements onshore. The requirements discussed in this rule
are being incorporated by reference into the OCS air regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 14, 2022. The
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 14,
2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0400. All documents in the docket are
available at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Viorica Petriman, Air Programs Branch,
Permitting Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VI. Judicial Review

I. What is the background for this action?

    On May 20, 2022 (87 FR 30849), EPA proposed to incorporate by
reference into the OCS Air regulations at 40 CFR part 55 \1\ updated
requirements pertaining to New York. See 87 FR 30849. The action that
EPA is taking in this rule is to finalize those proposed updates.
Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that for OCS sources located within
25 miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the
same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the
corresponding onshore area (COA). Because the OCS requirements are
based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, CAA
section 328(a)(1) requires that the EPA update

the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55 on September 4, 1992. The
reader may refer to the proposed rulemaking to promulgate part 55
from 56 FR 63774 (December 5, 1991) and the preamble to the final
rule promulgated 57 FR 40792 (September 4, 1992) for further
background and information on the OCS regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate by
reference into part 55 all relevant State rules in effect for onshore
sources, so they can be applied to OCS sources located offshore. This
limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be
incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents EPA from making
substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result,
EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform
to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain
requirements of the CAA. Inclusion in the OCS rules does not imply that
a rule meets the requirements of the CAA for SIP approval, nor does it
imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
    40 CFR 55.12 specifies certain times at which part 55's
incorporation by reference of a State's rules must be updated. One time
such a ``consistency update'' must occur is when any OCS source
applicant submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4 for a new
or a modified OCS source. 40 CFR 55.4(a) requires that any OCS source
applicant must submit to EPA a NOI before performing any physical
change or change in method of operation that results in an increase in
emissions. EPA must conduct any necessary consistency update when it
receives a NOI, and prior to receiving any application for a
preconstruction permit from the OCS source applicant. 40 CFR 55.6(b)(2)
and 55.12(f).
    On March 14, 2022, the EPA received a NOI from Empire Offshore Wind
LLC to submit an OCS air permit application for the construction and
operation of a new OCS source (a wind energy project) about 14 miles
offshore New York.
    The EPA reviewed the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (``NYSDEC'') air rules currently in effect, to ensure that
they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of Federal
and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) or part C of title I of
the CAA, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration
and development of the OCS, and that they are applicable to OCS
sources. See 40 CFR 55.1. The EPA has also evaluated the rules to
ensure they are not arbitrary and capricious. See 40 CFR 55.12(e). The
EPA has excluded New York's administrative or procedural rules,\2\ and
requirements that regulate toxics which are not related to the
attainment and maintenance of Federal and State AAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement
and enforce part 55, will use its administrative and procedural
rules as onshore. However, in those instances where EPA has not
delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, as in New
York, EPA will use its own administrative and procedural
requirements to implement the substantive requirements. See 40 CFR
55.14(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?

    The EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal to update a
portion of the OCS Air Regulations to incorporate updated requirements
into 40 CFR part 55 pertaining to the State of New York.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to incorporate by reference relevant
New York air pollution control rules into Sec.  55.14 and to update the
``New York'' section of appendix A to 40 CFR part 55, which lists those
rules. The EPA is approving this action under section 328(a) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7627(a). Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that EPA
establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources
located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same
as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA
must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they
exist onshore.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference as described in sections I. and II. of this
preamble. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference of ``State of New York
Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,'' dated March 10, 2022, which
provides the text of the NYSDEC air rules in effect as of March 10,
2022 that would apply to OCS sources. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, this material available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish
requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within
25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air
control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA
must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist
onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS
consistency updates, the EPA's role is to maintain consistency between
OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action
simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent
with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy
discretion by the EPA.

a. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and is therefore not subject
to review under the E.O.

b. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under PRA because this action only updates the State rules that are
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 55. OMB has previously
approved the information collection activities contained in the
existing regulations at 40 CFR part 55 and, by extension, this update
to part 55, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249. This action
does not impose a new information burden under PRA because this action
only updates the state rules that are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 55.

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This final rule
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities.
This consistency update under CAA section 328 does not create any new
requirements but simply updates the State requirements incorporated by
reference into 40 CFR part 55 to match the current State requirements.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local
or tribal governments.

e. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It does not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

f. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 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, nor does it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. It merely updates
the State requirements incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 55 to
match current State requirements.

g. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 and simply
updates the State requirements incorporated by reference into 40 CFR
part 55 to match the current State requirements.

h. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking 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 is inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.

j. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it 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.

k. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

VI. Judicial Review

    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 November 14, 2022. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer
Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 55, is amended
as follows.

PART 55--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AIR REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et
seq.) as amended by Pub. L. 101-549.

0
2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising the paragraph (e)(16)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  55.14  Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25
miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (16) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) State of New York Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, March
10, 2022.
* * * * *

0
3. Appendix A to 40 CFR part 55 is amended by revising the entry for
``New York'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements
Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

* * * * *

New York

    (a) State requirements.
    (1) The following State of New York requirements are applicable
to OCS Sources, as of March 10, 2022. New York Environmental
Conservation Law--Department of Environmental Conservation. The
following sections of Title 6, Chapter III:

Subchapter A. Prevention and Control of Air Contamination and Air
Pollution

Part 200. General Provisions

6 NYCRR 200.1. Definitions (effective 4/2/2020)
6 NYCRR 200.3. False Statement (effective 6/16/1972)
6 NYCRR 200.4. Severability (effective 8/9/1984)
6 NYCRR 200.6. Acceptable Ambient Air Quality (effective 4/6/1983)
6 NYCRR 200.7. Maintenance of Equipment (effective 2/22/1979)
6 NYCRR 200.9. Referenced Material (effective 2/11/2021)

Part 201. Permits and Certificates

6 NYCRR 201-1.1. Purpose and applicability (effective 2/22/2013)
6 NYCRR 201-1.4. Malfunctions and start-up/shutdown activities
(effective 2/25/2021)

6 NYCRR 201-1.5. Emergency defense (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-1.7. Recycling and salvage (effective 2/22/2013)
6 NYCRR 201-1.8. Prohibition of reintroduction of collected
contaminants to the air (effective 2/22/2013)
6 NYCRR 201-1.11. Temporary emission sources (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-1.12. Suspension, reopening, reissuance, modification,
or revocation of air permits (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-2. Definitions (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-4. Minor Facility Registration (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-5. State Facility Permits (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-6. Title V Facility Permits (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 201-7. Federally Enforceable Emission Caps (effective 2/25/
2021)
6 NYCRR 201-8. General Permits (effective 2/22/2013)
6 NYCRR 201-9. Tables (effective 2/25/2021)

Part 202. Emissions Verification

6 NYCRR 202-1. Emissions Testing, Sampling and Analytical
Determinations (effective 9/30/2010)
6 NYCRR 202-2. Emission Statements (effective 12/3/2020)

Part 207. Control Measures for an Air Pollution Episode (effective 2/
22/1979)

Part 211. General Prohibitions (effective 1/1/2011)

Part 212. Process Operations (effective 6/13/2015)

Part 215. Open Fires (effective 10/14/2009)

Part 219. Incinerators

6 NYCRR 219-1. Incineration--General Provisions (effective 3/15/
2020)
6 NYCRR 219-2. Municipal and Private Solid Waste Incineration
Facilities (effective 5/21/2005)
6 NYCRR 219-10. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) For
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) at Municipal and Private Solid
Waste Incineration Units (effective 3/15/2020)

Part 221. Asbestos-Containing Surface Coating Material (effective 9/29/
1972)

Part 222. Distributed Generation Sources (effective 3/26/2020)

Part 225. Fuel Consumption and Use

6 NYCRR 225-1. Fuel Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations
(effective 2/4/2021)
6 NYCRR 225-2. Fuel Composition and Use--Waste Oil as a Fuel
(effective 4/2/2020)
6 NYCRR 225-3. Fuel Composition and Use--Gasoline (effective 11/4/
2001)
6 NYCRR 225-4. Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel (effective 5/8/2005)

Part 226. Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes and Industrial Cleaning
Solvents (effective 11/1/2019)

Part 227. Stationary Combustion Installations

6 NYCRR 227-1. Stationary Combustion Installations (effective 2/25/
2000)
6 NYCRR 227-2. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) (effective
12/7/2019)
6 NYCRR 227-3. Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emission Limits
for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines (effective 1/
16/2020)

Part 228. Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial
Adhesives, Sealants and Primers (effective 6/5/2013)

Part 229. Petroleum and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer
(effective 4/4/1993)

Part 230. Gasoline Dispensing Sites and Transport Vehicles (effective
2/11/2021)

Part 231. New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities

6 NYCRR 231-3. General Provisions (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-4. Definitions (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-5. New Major Facilities and Modifications to Existing
Non-Major Facilities in Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Areas of
the State Within the Ozone Transport Region (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-6. Modifications to Existing Major Facilities in
Nonattainment Areas and Attainment Areas of the State Within the
Ozone Transport Region (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-7. New Major Facilities and Modifications to Existing
Non-Major Facilities in Attainment Areas (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) (effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-8. Modifications to Existing Major Facilities in
Attainment Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
(effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-9. Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL) (effective
2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-10. Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) (effective 2/25/
2021)
6 NYCRR 231-11. Permit and Reasonable Possibility Requirements
(effective 2/25/2021)
6 NYCRR 231-12. Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis (effective 2/25/
2021)
6 NYCRR 231-13. Tables and Emission Thresholds (effective 2/25/2021)

Part 241. Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating (effective
1/1/2011)

Part 242. CO2 Budget Trading Program

6 NYCRR 242-1. CO2 Budget Trading Program General
Provisions (effective 12/31/2020)
6 NYCRR 242-2. CO2 Authorized Account Representative for
CO2 Budget Sources (effective 12/31/2020)
6 NYCRR 242-3. Permits (effective 1/1/2014)
6 NYCRR 242-4. Compliance Certification (effective 1/1/2014)
6 NYCRR 242-5. CO2 Allowance Allocations (effective 12/
31/2020)
6 NYCRR 242-6. CO2 Allowance Tracking System (effective
12/31/2020)
6 NYCRR 242-7. CO2 Allowance Transfers (effective 1/1/
2014)
6 NYCRR 242-8. Monitoring and Reporting (effective 12/31/2020)
6 NYCRR 242-10. CO2 Emissions Offset Projects (effective
12/31/2020)

Part 243. CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
(effective 1/2/2019)

Part 244. CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program (effective 1/2/
2019)

Part 245. CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program (effective 1/2/
2019)

Subchapter B. Air Quality Classifications and Standards

Part 256. Air Quality Classifications System (effective 5/1/1972)

Part 257. Air Quality Standards

6 NYCRR 257-1. Air Quality Standards-General (effective 12/6/2019)
6 NYCRR 257-2. Air Quality Standards-Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(effective 3/18/1977)
6 NYCRR 257-3. Air Quality Standards-Particulates (effective 12/6/
2019)
6 NYCRR 257-4. Ambient Air Quality Standards-Fluorides (effective
12/6/2019)
6 NYCRR 257-5. Ambient Air Quality Standards-Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) (effective 12/6/2019)

Subchapter C. Air Quality Area Classifications

Part 287. Nassau County (effective 5/1/1972)

Part 288. New York City (effective 5/1/1972)

Part 307. Suffolk County (effective 5/1/1972)

Part 315. Westchester County (effective 5/1/1972)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2022-19782 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11258-11260]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03519]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68894; File No. SR-CHX-2013-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Alter the Circumstances Under Which Liquidity Providing Credits are
Paid to Institutional Brokers

February 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on February 6, 2013, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the

proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the 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

    CHX proposes to amend Exchange Rules and its Schedule of
Participant Fees and Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule'') to alter the
circumstances under which liquidity providing credits are paid to
Institutional Brokers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change on February 6, 2013. The text of this proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fee
Schedule to alter the circumstances under which liquidity providing
credits are paid to Institutional Brokers. The Exchange proposes to
make the fee change operative on February 6, 2013.
    Currently, for agency executions on the Exchange through an
Institutional Broker, Section E.3.a of the Fee Schedule charges a fee
of $.003/share, up to a maximum of $100 per side for all securities
priced $1.00/share or more in all sessions. Liquidity removing fees are
not charged to Institutional Brokers for single sided orders pursuant
to Section E.1.(a) of the Fee Schedule. When a single sided order
provides liquidity, Section E.1.(b) of the Fee Schedule specifies that
a liquidity providing credit of $0.0022/share in all Derivative
Securities Products priced $1.00/share or more executed in the Regular
Trading Session shall be paid to the Institutional Broker representing
the Participant which originated the order. Additionally, for single
sided orders, Section E.1.(c) of the Fee Schedule specifies that a
liquidity providing credit of $0.0022/share in all securities priced
$1.00/share or more executed in the Early or Late Trading Sessions
shall be paid to the Institutional Broker representing the Participant
which originated the order. Although infrequent, this pricing structure
can result in a scenario in which the fees charged by the Exchange are
capped due to the $100 per side cap while the credits paid are
uncapped, thus resulting in transaction that is revenue negative to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Section E.1.(b) of the Fee
Schedule to specify that a liquidity providing credit of $0.0022/share
in all Derivative Securities Products priced $1.00/share or more
executed in the Regular Trading Session shall be paid to the
Institutional Broker representing the Participant which originated the
order, unless such Institutional Broker also represents the Participant
which originated the matched liquidity taking order. Similarly, the
Exchange would amend Section E.1.(c) of the Fee Schedule to specify
that a liquidity providing credit of $0.0022/share in all securities
priced $1.00/share or more executed in the Early or Late Trading
Sessions shall be paid to the Institutional Broker representing the
Participant which originated the order, unless such Institutional
Broker also represents the Participant which originated the matched
liquidity taking order. The Exchange believes that these changes will
allow it to continue to incent liquidity providing orders while at the
same time limiting transactions that are revenue negative to the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that the rates associated with the fees
being charged and credits paid do not change as a result of this
filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, or broker dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the change provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees because it is being proposed to address a
specific scenario in which the fees charged by the Exchange are capped
while the credits paid under certain circumstances are uncapped, thus
resulting in transaction that is revenue negative to the Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies equally to all CHX registered
Institutional Brokers. The Exchange also notes that the rates
associated with the fees being charged and credits paid do not change
as a result of this filing.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The rule change is designed
to address a specific scenario in which the fees charged by the
Exchange are capped while the credits paid under certain circumstances
are uncapped, thus resulting in transaction that is revenue negative to
the Exchange. As stated above, the rates associated with the fees being
charged and credits paid do not change as a result of this filing.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder \7\ because it establishes
or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CHX-2013-06 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-CHX-2013-06. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-
2013-06, and should be submitted on or before March 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03519 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4800-4804]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0449; A-1-FRL-9773-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan
revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. These SIP revisions
consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the requirements of
reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and
volatile organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect
to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing
approval of three single source orders. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 22,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0449 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0449,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0449. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittals are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On December 8, 2006, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision
consists of information documenting how Connecticut complied with the
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.\1\ On July 20, 2007, Connecticut submitted
three single source RACT orders controlling volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions to EPA and requested that the orders be incorporated
into the Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Connecticut submittal was made to address RACT for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and does not address the 0.075 parts per
million 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires RACT in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
VOC and nitrogen oxide emissions sources and for all sources covered by
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC
source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control
requirements. States must submit rules or negative declarations for CTG
source categories, but not for sources in ACT categories. However, RACT
must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of those
major sources may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.
    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma.
    On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard needed to address (see
70 FR 71612). This rule, referred to as the ``Phase 2 Implementation
rule,'' contained, among other things, a description of EPA's
expectations for states with RACT obligations. The Phase 2
Implementation rule indicated that states could meet RACT through the
establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT
control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT
controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes,
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State
must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG
sources.

II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revisions

    On December 8, 2006, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its
regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT
as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The state held a
public hearing on the RACT program on October 18, 2006. Connecticut's
RACT submittal notes that their prior designation as a nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in the adoption of
stringent controls for major sources of VOC and NOX,
including RACT level controls. Therefore, as allowed for within EPA's
Phase 2 Implementation rule, much of Connecticut's submittal consists
of a review of RACT controls adopted under the 1-hour ozone standard
and an indication of whether those previously adopted controls still
represent RACT. Additionally, Connecticut notes that as a member state
of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) it works with that organization
to identify and adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional
VOC and NOX categories beyond those for which EPA has issued
CTGs or ACT documents.
    The state's submittal identifies the specific control measures that
have been previously adopted to control emissions from major sources of
VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for some CTG categories,
and describes updates made to two existing rules to strengthen them so
that they will continue to represent VOC RACT. Table 3 of Connecticut's
submittal contains a summary of the previously-adopted measures for
each of the CTG categories

that EPA issued prior to 2006.\2\ The table identifies the specific
state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the date of state
adoption, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the Connecticut
SIP. Connecticut notes that sections 22a-174-20 and 22a-174-32 of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which are the principal
regulations that apply to stationary sources of VOC emissions,
generally cover sources emitting 25 or more tons of VOC per year in the
state's ``severe'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and those emitting
50 or more tons of VOC per year in the rest of the state. However, for
some CTG categories such as surface coating sources, Connecticut's
rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent with the
relevant CTGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking does not address Connecticut's response to
the CTGs that EPA issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Connecticut's submittal notes that no sources exist in
the state for some CTG categories. Specifically, Table 3 of
Connecticut's submittal makes negative declarations for the following
CTG sectors:
    1. Automobile coating.
    2. Large petroleum dry cleaners.
    3. Large appliance coating.
    4. Natural gas and gas processing plants.
    5. Flat wood paneling coating.
    6. Control of VOC leaks from petroleum refineries.
    Finally, Connecticut updated two existing VOC rules in order to
continue their status as representing RACT. Namely, these are rules
limiting emissions from cutback asphalt paving and solvent cleaning
(metal degreasing). The original version of the state's cutback asphalt
rule allowed use of cutback asphalt, with some restrictions, during the
ozone season and provided exemptions for penetrating prime coat
products and for long-term storage of asphalt. The state's updated rule
removed these provisions and was submitted to EPA on January 8, 2009
and approved by EPA into the Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR
50595). Additionally, Connecticut updated its solvent cleaning rule to
more closely reflect the OTC's 2001 model rule for this activity. The
update included a limit on the vapor pressure used in cold cleaning
solvents and operating practices to further reduce VOC emissions.
Connecticut submitted its updated solvent cleaning rule to EPA on
February 1, 2008, and EPA approved the revised rule into the
Connecticut SIP within the August 22, 2012 Federal Register rulemaking
noted above.
    As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NOX
emissions as well as VOC emissions. In particular, the submittal's
Table 4 lists all major sources of NOX (and VOC) in the
state, and Connecticut identifies several regulations previously
approved by EPA which represent RACT for NOX. Connecticut
notes that all facilities in the state with the potential to emit 50
tons or more of NOX per year (or 25 tons or more in the
``severe'' 1-hour ozone area of the state) are subject to Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies section 22a-174-22, ``Control of Nitrogen
Oxide Emissions.'' In addition, section 22a-174-38 regulates
NOX emissions from Connecticut's six municipal waste
combustors (MWCs), which constitute roughly thirty percent of the
state's annual NOX emissions from major NOX
sources. Connecticut indicates that section 22a-174-38 is as stringent
as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements EPA
promulgated in 2006, and that this rule thus represents RACT for MWCs
in Connecticut.
    Connecticut's submittal also points out that NOX
emissions have been reduced due to the implementation of several
NOX trading programs. Connecticut's SIP includes regulations
implementing the OTC and Federal NOX Budget Programs and the
subsequent Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program. All three of these
programs and their corresponding regulations (Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies section 22-174-22a, 22-174-22b, and 22-174-
22c, respectively) were submitted to EPA and approved into the
Connecticut SIP. Connecticut explains that when its CAIR program,
section 22-174-22c, became effective, its Federal NOX Budget
Program contained in section 22-174-22b was repealed.
    In addition to these general, state-wide NOX and VOC
rules, Connecticut's submittal addresses certain individual sources in
the state. Table 4 of Connecticut's submittal identifies the major
NOX and VOC sources in the state that are not covered by an
ACT or CTG document. The state has issued source-specific orders
containing control requirements for the facilities listed in Table 4 of
the state's submittal, all of which have been previously approved into
the Connecticut SIP. Additionally, on July 20, 2007, Connecticut
submitted VOC RACT orders for the Curtis Packaging Corporation in
Newtown, Sumitomo Bakelite North America, Incorporated, located in
Manchester, and Cyro Industries in Wallingford.
    Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NOX thus concludes that, with the adoption of
revised rules for cutback asphalt and solvent cleaning, all major
sources in the state are subject to RACT.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Connecticut's determination that it has adopted
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT, and determined that the set of regulations cited by
the state constitute RACT for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additionally, we are proposing to approve the three VOC RACT
orders submitted by the state on July 20, 2007.
    Connecticut's submittal documents the state's VOC and
NOX control regulations that have been adopted to ensure
that RACT level controls are required in the state. These requirements
include the following Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies:
section 22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions; section 22a-
174-22, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions; section 22a-174-30,
Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery; section
22a-174-32, RACT for Organic Compound Emissions; and 22a-174-38,
Municipal Waste Combustors. Additionally, Connecticut has adopted
numerous single source RACT orders for major sources of VOC and
NOX that are not covered by one of EPA's CTGs or ACTs, and
these orders have been submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP.
Also, as noted above, Connecticut adopted and EPA has approved into the
Connecticut SIP updates to the state's existing asphalt paving and
solvent metal cleaning regulations that strengthened these two VOC
control regulations.
    Furthermore, Connecticut notes that its participation within
several NOX budget trading programs also acted to reduce
NOX emissions in the state. Between 1999 and 2002,
Connecticut participated in the OTC's NOX Budget Program.
Connecticut implemented this program by adopting section 22a-174-22a,
the NOX Budget Program, and submitted this regulation to EPA
which we incorporated into the Connecticut SIP on September 28, 1999
(64 FR 52233). In 2003, these NOX budget sources were
transitioned to the Federal NOX budget program which
Connecticut implemented by adopting section 22a-174-22b, the Post-2002
NOX Budget Program. Connecticut submitted this regulation to
EPA, and we approved it into the Connecticut SIP on December 27, 2000
(65 FR 81743).
    The state's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in
NOX and

VOC emissions from stationary sources between 1990 and 2007, although
part of that decline is attributable to RACT controls implemented by
Connecticut in the early and mid 1990s to help it meet the older 1-hour
ozone standard. Of more relevance is the decline in point source
emissions that occurred since EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Data collected by Connecticut from its annual survey of
industrial point source emitters reveals that between 1999 and 2005,
VOC emissions from industrial point sources declined by 66%, and
NOX emissions declined by 38%. This decline in emissions was
brought about, in part, by the RACT program implemented by Connecticut.
    We have determined that these regulatory elements and the resulting
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from major sources
demonstrate that a RACT level of control for both pollutants has been
implemented in the state. Additionally, EPA has determined that
Connecticut's two 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas attained the 1997
ozone standard by their attainment date, based on quality assured air
monitoring data. This determination was published on August 31, 2010
(75 FR 53219) for the Greater Connecticut area, and on June 18, 2012
(77 FR 36163) for the New York City area. The improvements in air
quality represented by these clean data determinations were brought
about, in part, by the RACT program implemented by Connecticut.
    EPA does not anticipate any difficulties with enforcing the state's
standards, as EPA has previously approved the rules Connecticut cites
as the means by which RACT is implemented. Additionally, Connecticut
acted to further reduce NOX emissions by adopting section
22a-174-22c, the Clean Air Interstate NOX Ozone Season
trading program. Connecticut submitted this program to EPA, and we
approved it into the SIP on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 4105). Although the
CAIR program was subject to a number of court challenges, a recent
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
issued on August 21, 2012 which vacated the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule provided that until the CSAPR litigation is resolved, the CAIR
program remains in effect. (EME Homer City Generation, L.P., v. EPA,
No. 11-1302. (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
    EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX stationary source
control regulations which Connecticut contends meets RACT for the 1997
8-hour standard, and determined that a level of control consistent with
RACT has been implemented in the state. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve Connecticut's December 8, 2006 RACT certification.
    Additionally, we are proposing approval of the VOC RACT orders for
the following three companies described below:

Cyro Industries

    Cyro Industries manufactures extruded polymer pellets that are
molded into various shapes by the end user at its facility located in
Wallingford. The facility operates VOC emitting process equipment
including raw material storage tanks, monomer preparation equipment,
polymer production extrusion lines, grafted rubber equipment, dye
preparation and post coloring operations. Additionally, VOC emissions
occur from fugitive leaks, and from a number of small process and space
heaters.
    Cyro Industries took ownership of the facility from American
Cyanamid in 2005. Pursuant to Connecticut's section 22a-174-32(e)(6),
Cyro submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection. The facility essentially
requested that the VOC RACT requirements that had formerly been imposed
on American Cyanamid pursuant to Connecticut RACT order 8012 be
maintained as RACT. Connecticut reviewed this request and essentially
agreed, issuing RACT order 8268 to Cyro Industries on February 28,
2007. The new order updated the equipment and process lines described
in the prior order and ensures that VOC emissions are reduced by no
less than 85%.

Sumitomo Bakelite North America

    Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly named Vyncolit North American,
Incorporated, produces fiberglass impregnated and resinous pellets at
its facility in Manchester. There are seven separate process lines in
use at the facility. The company submitted a request that their
emissions be controlled via an alternative RACT compliance plan under
section 22a-174-32(e)(6). Connecticut reviewed the facility's request
and, on October 11, 2006, issued order 8245 to the facility. The order
requires, among other things, that the facility comply with the
following requirements: actual emissions may not exceed 45 tons of VOC
for any consecutive 12 month period or exceed 8,889 pounds per month
for any given month; process lines identified as EXT2 and EXT3 are not
allowed to use VOC containing components except during the mixing
process, and the vapor pressure of all materials used during the
blending process shall be less than or equal to 1.0 millimeters of
mercury measured at 18.5 degrees Centigrade; only non-VOC materials can
be used in the manufacture of ``DAP'' products or in process line EXT1;
and, emissions of VOC from new, non-extruded products shall not exceed
0.006 pounds of VOC per pound of non-extruded product produced. These
requirements will yield a VOC reduction of approximately 76% at the
facility.

Curtis Packaging Corporation

    The Curtis Packaging Corporation manufactures custom designed
paperboard and cardboard packaging at its facility in Newtown using
three sheet-fed offset lithographic printing presses. The facility is
subject to EPA's 2006 CTG for lithographic printing. In an effort to
comply with the requirements of that CTG, the company reformulated many
of its fountain solutions with non-alcohol additives and ultra violet
(UV) light cured inks seeking to meet the CTG's requirements. However,
the facility was not able to meet the CTG's overall emission reduction
requirement, and so submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
    Connecticut reviewed the company's request, and on May 1, 2007,
issued order 8270 to the facility. The order requires, among other
things, the following: fountain solutions must contain no alcohol
additives, and must have a VOC content of 5% or less by weight, as
applied; UV cured inks must be used instead of oil based inks; and,
cleaning solutions are limited to 30% VOC by weight.
    EPA has reviewed these single source VOC RACT orders, and agrees
with Connecticut that they represent a RACT level of control for each
facility. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of these orders.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's December 8, 2006 SIP
submittal that demonstrates that the state has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval
of orders submitted by Connecticut on July 20, 2007 for Cyro
Industries, Sumitomo Bakelite North America, and Curtis Packaging, as
representing RACT for these three facilities.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final

action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England
Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-01340 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36650-36652]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15972]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No: 34-86432; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules
To Permit Cboe Trading, Inc. To Become a Trading Permit Holder and an
Inbound and Outbound Router of the Exchange

July 23, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On June 25, 2019, the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to adopt rules related to outbound routing
and limited inbound routing by an affiliated Trading Permit Holder, as
well as seek approval from the Commission for that affiliate, Cboe
Trading, Inc. (``Cboe Trading''), to become a Trading Permit Holder of
the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 3, 2019.\3\ The Commission did not receive any
comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order provides
accelerated approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86224 (June 27,
2019), 84 FR 31940 (July 3, 2019) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As described in more detail in the Notice, the Exchange proposes
to: (1) Seek approval from the Commission pursuant to Cboe Options Rule
3.32(b) for its affiliate, Cboe Trading, to become a Trading Permit
Holder of the Exchange; (2) amend Rule 3.32(b) to conform it to the
rules of the Exchange's affiliate options exchanges (Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX
Options'') and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') (collectively, the
``Affiliated Cboe Exchanges'') and relocate it to Rule 3.11; (3) adopt
Rule 3.12 to govern the Exchange's use of Cboe Trading as an outbound
router; (4) adopt Rule 3.13 to govern the Exchange's receipt of inbound
orders from the Affiliated Cboe Exchanges; and (5) amend Rule 6.14B to
specify that it applies to the Exchange's non-affiliated routing
brokers.\4\ The

Exchange notes that proposed Rules 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 and current Rule
6.14B are substantively identical in all material respects to EDGX
Options Rules 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, and 21.9(e), as well as C2 Rules 3.16,
3.17, 3.18 and 6.15(e).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id. at 31941. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14B
to account for its use of affiliate Cboe Trading as an outbound
router, as proposed, by specifying that the rule applies to the
Exchange's non-affiliated routing brokers. The Exchange also
proposes to specify in the introductory rule text under Rule 6.14B
that the conditions in the following subparagraphs apply to non-
affiliated routing brokers, as well as update the rule heading
accordingly. The Exchange noted in its filing that the proposed
changes to Rule 6.14B do not substantively alter the conditions in
that rule, which currently are applicable to non-affiliated routing
brokers. See id. at 31943. The Exchange further noted that C2 Rule
6.15(e) and EDGX Options Rule 21.9(e) provide the same conditions
for their non-affiliated routing brokers. See id. The Exchange is
not proposing to treat its non-affiliated routing brokers as back-up
routing brokers for its affiliate. See id. at note 6.
    \5\ See id. at 31941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has previously expressed concern
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a
member firm is affiliated with an exchange to and from which it is
routing orders, the Exchange has proposed limitations and conditions on
Cboe Trading's affiliation with the Exchange as part of its proposal to
use Cboe Trading as an outbound router and limited inbound router.
    Limited Inbound Routing. Specifically, as detailed above, the
Exchange committed to the following limitations and conditions
concerning limited inbound routing of transactions to Cboe Options from
the Affiliated Cboe Exchanges: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 31942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange must enter into a plan pursuant to Rule 17d-2
under the Exchange Act with a non-affiliated self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') and a regulatory services agreement with a non-
affiliated SRO to perform regulatory responsibilities for Cboe Trading
for unique Exchange rules.
     The regulatory services agreement must require the
Exchange to provide the non-affiliated SRO with information, in an
easily accessible manner, regarding all exception reports, alerts,
complaints, trading errors, cancellations, investigations, and
enforcement matters (collectively, ``Exceptions'') in which Cboe
Trading is identified as a participant that has potentially violated
Exchange or Commission rules, and shall require that the non-affiliated
SRO provide a report to the Exchange quantifying all such exception
reports, alerts, complaints, trading errors, cancellations,
investigations and enforcement matters on not less than a quarterly
basis.
     The Exchange, on behalf of its parent company, Cboe Global
Markets, must establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that Cboe Trading does not develop or
implement changes to its systems on the basis of nonpublic information
obtained as a result of its affiliation with the Exchange until such
information is available generally to similarly situated Trading Permit
Holders of the Exchange.
    As proposed, if the Exchange complies with the above-listed
conditions, then Cboe Trading would be permitted to operate as a
limited inbound router for orders sent to Cboe Options from the
Affiliated Cboe Exchanges, which would entail Cboe Trading acting as an
outbound router on behalf of each Affiliated Cboe Exchange in
accordance with their respective rules.
    Outbound Routing. Further, the Exchange committed to the following
limitations and conditions concerning outbound routing transactions:
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. at 31941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cboe Options will regulate the outbound router function of
Cboe Trading as a facility (subject to Section 6 of the Act), and will,
among other things, be responsible for filing with the Commission rule
changes and fees relating to the Cboe Trading outbound router function
and Cboe Trading will be subject to exchange nondiscrimination
requirements.
     FINRA, an SRO unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its
affiliates, will carry out oversight and enforcement responsibilities
as the designated examining authority designated by the Commission
pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act with the responsibility for examining
Cboe Trading for compliance with applicable financial responsibility
rules.
     A Trading Permit Holder's use of Cboe Trading to route
orders to another trading center will be optional. Any Trading Permit
Holder that does not want to use Cboe Trading may use other routers to
route orders to other trading centers.
     Cboe Trading will not engage in any business other than
(i) its outbound router function, (ii) its inbound router function as
described in Rule 3.13, (iii) its usage of an error account in
compliance with proposed Rule 3.12(a)(7) (regarding Cboe Trading's
maintenance of an error account described below), and (iv) any other
activities it may engage in as approved by the Commission.
     The Exchange will establish and maintain procedures and
internal controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow
of confidential and proprietary information between the Exchange and
its facilities (including Cboe Trading), and any other entity,
including any affiliate of Cboe Trading, and, if Cboe Trading or any of
its affiliates engages in any other business activities other than
providing routing services to the Exchange, between the segment of Cboe
Trading or its affiliate that provides the other business activities
and the routing services.
     The Exchange or Cboe Trading may cancel orders as either
deems to be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a
technical or systems issue occurs at the Exchange, Cboe Trading, or a
routing destination. The Exchange or Cboe Trading will provide notice
of the cancellation to affected Trading Permit Holders as soon as
practicable.
     Proposed Rule 3.12(a)(7) provides that Cboe Trading will
maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions that
are the result of an execution or executions that are not clearly
erroneous under Rule 6.25 and result from a technical or systems issue
at Cboe Trading, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-
affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders
(``Error Positions'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 31941-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors,
and employees of Cboe Trading as a facility of the Exchange are deemed
to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors, and
employees of the Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight
pursuant to, the Exchange Act. The books and records of Cboe Trading as
a facility of the Exchange are subject at all times to inspection and
copying by the Exchange and the Commission. Nothing in the Rules
precludes officers, agents, directors, or employees of the Exchange
from also serving as officers, agents, directors, and employees of Cboe
Trading.
    The Exchange proposed the above conditions for both inbound and
outbound routing to protect the independence of the Exchange's
regulatory responsibility with respect to Cboe Trading, as well as
ensure that Cboe Trading cannot use any information that it may have
because of its affiliation with the Exchange to its advantage.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 31943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is

consistent with the requirements of the Act,\10\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ which
requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be so
organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act,
and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulation thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Further, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Section 6(b)(5) also
requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\14\ To address these concerns, the Exchange has proposed the
ongoing conditions summarized above, and also discussed further in the
Notice, that will be applicable to Cboe Trading's routing activities in
its capacity as a facility of the Exchange. The Commission believes
that these conditions are designed to mitigate concerns about potential
conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantage. In particular,
the Commission believes that a non-affiliated SRO's oversight of Cboe
Trading, combined with a non-affiliated SRO's monitoring of Cboe
Trading's compliance with applicable rules and regulations, will help
ensure appropriate and independent regulatory oversight of Cboe
Trading. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's proposal is
designed to ensure that the Exchange will not permit Cboe Trading to
have any information advantage on account of its affiliation with the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings, Inc.); 58673 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707
(October 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62 and SR-NYSE-2008-60) (order
approving the combination of NYSE Euronext and the American Stock
Exchange LLC); 59135 (December 22, 2008), 73 FR 79954 (December 30,
2008) (SR-ISE-2009-85) (order approving the purchase by ISE Holdings
of an ownership interest in DirectEdge Holdings LLC); 59281 (January
22, 2009), 74 FR 5014 (January 28, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-120) (order
approving a joint venture between NYSE and BIDS Holdings L.P.);
58375 (August 18, 2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-
182) (order granting the exchange registration of BATS Exchange,
Inc.); 61698 (March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (File
Nos. 10-194 and 10-196) (order granting the exchange registration of
EDGX Exchange, Inc. and EDGA Exchange, Inc.); 62716 (August 13,
2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10-198) (order
granting the exchange registration of BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.); 66808
(April 13, 2012), 77 FR 23294 (April 18, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-013)
(order approving rules change to make permanent a pilot program
allowing inbound routing); 69870 (June 27, 2013), 78 FR 40225 (July
3, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-17) (same); and 82952 (March 27, 2018), 83 FR
14096 (April 2, 2018) (C2-2018-004) (order approving inbound
router).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Exchange Rule 3.32(b) provides that, without prior
Commission approval, no Trading Permit Holder may be or become
affiliated with the Exchange. The Exchange now seeks Commission
approval for its affiliate, Cboe Trading, to become a Trading Permit
Holder of the Exchange pursuant to Rule 3.32(b) so that its affiliate
may provide routing services as a facility of the Exchange. Although
the Commission continues to be concerned about potential unfair
competition and conflicts of interest between an exchange's self-
regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when the exchange is
affiliated with one of its members, for the reasons discussed above,
the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act to permit
Cboe Trading to become affiliated with the Exchange, in the capacity of
a facility of the Exchange, for the purposes of providing the proposed
routing services for the Exchange subject to the conditions described
above.
    The Commission notes that Cboe Trading currently serves as the
outbound, and limited inbound, routing facility for the Affiliated Cboe
Exchanges, and is subject to the same conditions and limitations by
those exchanges.\15\ The Exchange's current proposal is intended to
allow Cboe Trading to perform an identical role for the Exchange as to
which it currently performs for EDGX Options, BZX Options, and C2,
including acting as an outbound router and as a limited inbound router
to receive options orders from other Affiliated Cboe Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See EDGX Options Rule 2.12 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as Inbound
Router), BZX Options Rule 2.12 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as Inbound
Router), and C2 Options Rule 3.18 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as Inbound
Router). See also EDGX Options Rule 2.11 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as
Outbound Router), BZX Options Rule 2.11 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as
Outbound Router), and C2 Rule 3.18 (Cboe Trading, Inc. as Outbound
Router).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that good cause exists for accelerated
approval of the proposed rule change because the proposed rule change
raises no novel issues, as the Exchange is adopting the same conditions
and limitations that EDGX Options, BZX Options, and C2 have adopted for
Cboe Trading.\16\ Furthermore, the Commission did not receive any
comments during the comment period on this filing. For those reasons,
the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ to approve the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that it did not receive any comments
on substantively identical proposals from EDGX Options, BZX Options,
and C2 with respect to inbound routing from Cboe Trading. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66808 (April 13, 2012), 77 FR
23294 (April 18, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-013); 69870 (June 27, 2013), 78
FR 40225 (July 3, 2013) (SR-EDGX-2013-17); and 82952 (March 27,
2019), 83 FR 14097 (April 2, 2018) (SR-C2-2018-004).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2019-030) be, and
hereby is, granted accelerated approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15972 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51639-51641]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0237]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection Request: Generic Clearance of Customer Satisfaction Surveys

AGENCY: FMCSA, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide
service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service
available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to
ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) seeks to obtain
OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect feedback on our service
delivery. By feedback we mean information that provides useful insights
on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield
quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of
study.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2014-0237 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Services; U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to 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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Ronk, Program Manager,
FMCSA, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery, Outreach Division/
MC-ESO. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Mr. Jeff Loftus, Supervisory Transportation Specialist, Technology
Division/MC-RRT, Office of Analysis, Research and Technology, telephone
(202) 385-2363; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Executive Order 12862 ``Setting Customer Service
Standards,'' directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public
that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private
sector (58 FR 48257, Sept. 11, 1993). In order to work continuously to
ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs,
FMCSA seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect
qualitative feedback from our customers on our service delivery. The
surveys covered in this generic clearance will provide a means for
FMCSA to collect this data directly from our customers. By qualitative
feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on
perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield
quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of
study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder
perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of
issues with service, or focus attention on areas of communication,
training or changes in operations that might improve delivery of
products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing,
collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its
customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this
information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management and
any release outside the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of
the information;
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalized to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results. As a general matter, information collections will not result
in any new system of records containing privacy information and will
not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and
attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
considered private.
    Title: Generic Clearance of Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-New.
    Type of Request: New information collection request.
    Respondents: State and local agencies, general public and
stakeholders; original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and suppliers to
the commercial

motor vehicle (CMV) industry; fleets, owner-operators, state CMV safety
agencies, research organizations and contractors; news organizations
and safety advocacy groups.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,900.
    Estimated Time per Response: Range from 10-120 minutes.
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new ICR.
    Frequency of Response: Generally, on an annual basis.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,274.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: August 18, 2014.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-20640 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P