[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21921-21924]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08425]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77552; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rules 7015(g)(1) and 7034

April 7, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 6, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Access Services fees at Rule
7015(g)(1) to reduce the fee assessed for MITCH Wave Ports located at
Mahwah, NJ. The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 7034 to: (i)
Reduce monthly fees assessed for NYSE Equities market data
connectivity; and (ii) make technical changes to the description of
market data connectivity options under the rule. While these amendments
are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed
amendments to be operative on April 1, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the substance of this filing is
identical to the substance of SR-NASDAQ-2016-047, which was filed
March 29, 2016, and withdrawn on April 6, 2016. This filing replaced
SR-NASDAQ-2016-047, thus, the fee changes were effective upon filing
but have been operative since April 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce certain fees
under Rules 7015 and 7034, and to make technical changes to the
description of market data connectivity options under Rule 7034.

Rule 7015 Changes
    The Exchange is proposing to reduce the fee assessed for MITCH Wave
Port at Mahwah, NJ monthly subscriptions. The Exchange provides Multi-
cast ITCH (``MITCH'') Wave Ports to clients co-located at other third-
party data centers, including the New York Stock Exchange`s (``NYSE'')
data center located in Mahwah, NJ, through which the Exchange's
TotalView ITCH market data is distributed after delivery to those data
centers via a wireless network.
    The wirelessly-delivered TotalView ITCH market data arrives at
Exchange-owned cabinets located at these third-party data centers, to
which the co-location clients may cross-connect to the MITCH Wave Ports
in those data centers to receive TotalView ITCH.\4\ The wireless
network that the Exchange uses to connect its data center with third-
party data centers is provided and maintained by third-party vendors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Subscription to MITCH Wave Ports is entirely optional. Co-
location clients that opt to subscribe to MITCH Wave Ports will
continue to be fee liable for the applicable market data fees as
described in Rules 7019, 7023, and 7026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange incurs costs in leasing towers and equipment to
connect to third-party data centers, such as Mahwah, NJ, through its
third party vendors and the Exchange recoups these costs through the
fees it assesses. The Exchange has recently reduced such vendor cost
for connectivity to Mahwah, NJ by switching to an alternative vendor
that assesses the Exchange a lower fee for such connectivity and is
accordingly proposing to reduce the monthly charge assessed to
subscribers for a MITCH Wave Port at Mahwah, NJ from $12,500 per month
to $10,000 per month.
Rule 7034 Changes
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7034 to: (i) Reduce monthly
fees assessed for NYSE Equities market data connectivity; and (ii) make
technical changes to the description of market data connectivity
options under the rule. Rule 7034 provides the charges assessed by the
Exchange for co-location services. Rule 7034(b) provides the various
connectivity options for co-location services. The Exchange offers
multicast Market Data feeds that are delivered to the Exchange's data
center located in Carteret, NJ via a wireless network.\5\ The Exchange
offers connectivity to data feeds provided by NYSE, BATS (including
Direct Edge), and CME, which are delivered wirelessly by third party
vendors from those market's [sic] data centers to the Exchange's
Carteret, NJ data center. Specifically, the NYSE Equities data feeds
under Rule 7034(b) are wirelessly delivered to Carteret, NJ from NYSE's
Mahwah, NJ data center, the BATS and Direct Edge data feeds are
wirelessly delivered to Carteret, NJ from BATS's Secaucus, NJ data
center, and the CME data feeds are wirelessly delivered to Carteret, NJ
from CME's Aurora, IL data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Subscription to the connectivity options under Rule 7034(b)
is entirely optional. To receive a particular data feed, a
participant must subscribe to the connectivity under Rule 7034(b)
and also have a subscription to the data feed with the applicable
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first change the Exchange proposes is to reduce the recurring
monthly fee assessed for connectivity to NYSE Equities data feeds,
which are transmitted from the Mahwah, NJ data center to the Exchange's
data center in Carteret, NJ. As discussed above, the Exchange recently
reduced its vendor costs by switching to an alternative vendor that
assesses the Exchange a lower fee for such connectivity. Because of the
reduced vendor costs realized for connectivity to Mahwah, NJ, the
Exchange is able to reduce the charges assessed for services that
require wireless connectivity to Mahwah, NJ.
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a recurring monthly fee of $12,500
for connectivity to NYSE Equities Arca Integrated feed and the for the
NYSE Equities Open Book feed. As a consequence of the reduced vendor
costs, the Exchange is proposing to reduce the charge it assesses as a
recurring monthly fee for each of these services from $12,500 to
$10,000.
    The second change the Exchange proposes is to make technical
corrections to the rule text under Rule 7034(b) concerning NYSE
Equities Open Book connectivity and BATS Multicast PITCH connectivity.
NYSE recently combined Open Book data with NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, and
NYSE Order Imbalances data to form the ``NYSE Integrated'' data
feed,\6\ which the Exchange began to offer on November 16, 2015.
Accordingly, the Exchange is [sic] updated the rule text under Rule
7034(b) to accurately reflect this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76485 (November 20,
2015), 80 FR 74158 (November 27, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also correcting rule text concerning BATS Multicast
PITCH connectivity that was inadvertently introduced when the rule text
was adopted.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange is correcting the spelling
of ``Multicast'' in the rule and is correcting the name of the BATS BZX
exchange, which is currently spelled ``BZY.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73562 (January 25,
2013), 78 FR 6842 (January 31, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-119)
    \8\ For a description of Bats Global Markets, Inc.'s exchanges,
see http://www.batstrading.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility
or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in 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; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\ Likewise, in
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \12\
(``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\13\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market

data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499
(June 9, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \13\ See NetCoalition, at 534.
    \14\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Reductions
    The Exchange believes that proposed reduction in the monthly
recurring fees assessed under Rules 7015 and 7034(b) are [sic]
reasonable because they [sic] will allow the Exchange to align the fees
assessed for the connectivity more closely with the costs incurred by
the Exchange in offering the connectivity. As discussed above, the
Exchange realized a reduction in its vendor costs. Vendors supply
wireless connectivity from the Exchange's data center to the data
centers of other markets. Vendor costs are not the only costs to the
Exchange in offering such connectivity; however, the reduced vendor
cost for wirelessly connecting to Mahwah, NJ has allowed the Exchange
to reduce the monthly fee assessed for connectivity to Mahwah, NJ by
$2,500.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed reduced monthly recurring fees
are also reasonable because they are in-line with other fees assessed
for similar connectivity, with differences in cost being reflective of
the differences in the relative cost of offering the services. For
example, the proposed reduced fees assessed under Rule 7034(b) for
connectivity to the NYSE Equities feeds, although higher as reflection
of the increased costs the Exchange incurs in offering the
connectivity, are consistent with BATS Multicast PITCH BZX and BYX data
feed connectivity under Rule 7034(b), which has a monthly recurring fee
of $7,500. With respect to the costs incurred, the Exchange notes that
the distance, and hence the wireless network equipment required, is
greater between Mahwah, NJ and Carteret, NJ in contrast to the distance
between Secaucus, NJ and Carteret, NJ, which is reflected in the fees
that vendors charge the Exchange for such connectivity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced fees are an
equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated co-location
clients that voluntarily select these service options. The Exchange
also notes that co-location clients will continue to have other
connectivity options to receive the underlying data feeds, including
fiber optic connectivity.
Fee Clarifications
    The Exchange believes that the proposed clarifying changes to Rule
7034(b) serve to protect investors and the public interest because they
remove misspelled and inaccurate rule text, which will serve to avoid
investor confusion, and will not alter what is currently provided under
the rule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed co-
location clients for wireless connectivity do not impose a burden on
competition because the Exchange is reducing the monthly fees assessed
for such connectivity as a reflection of the Exchange's reduced vendor
costs. Such a proposal is reflective of healthy competition among
markets and may promote other exchanges to likewise reduce their costs
and/or reduce the fees that they assess for similar connectivity.
    Although the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will be unattractive to market participants, if they were it is likely
that the Exchange will lose subscribers as a result. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NASDAQ-2016-053 on the subject line.

Paper comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-053. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 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-NASDAQ-2016-053, and should be submitted on or before
May 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08425 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9240-9242]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04646]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0226; FRL-9990-74-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA: Emission Reduction Credits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to revise the emission reduction credits (ERC) regulation. EPA is
approving portions of the SIP revision submitted by the State of
Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources'
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) on September 15, 2008. The
revision expands the eligibility for sources in Barrow County that can
participate in the ERC Program, adds a provision for reevaluation of
the Certificates of ERC, changes the administrative fees, and
eliminates an exemption for certain types of ERCs. This action is being
taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective April 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0226. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 15, 2008, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that involves changes to Georgia's emissions reduction credits
rule and the administrative fees found in Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(13).
Rule 391-3-1-.03(13) provides for the creation, banking, transfer, and
use of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) ERCs in Federally designated ozone nonattainment areas in Georgia
and administrative fees associated with the ERC Program.
    GA EPD oversees the ERC Program, which was created in 1999 and
approved into Georgia's SIP on July 10, 2001. See 66 FR 35906. The ERC
Program facilitates construction permitting for major emission sources
that are subject to nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting
in Georgia ozone nonattainment areas. Emissions point sources within
the 25-county area surrounding Atlanta that require Best Available
Control Technology and offset permitting are also eligible for the ERC
Program.
    The ERC Program allows eligible sources that voluntarily reduce
emissions in the affected counties to certify and ``bank'' these
reductions as ERCs for future use by themselves or others. The banked
ERCs hold their value for ten years, at which point they begin
devaluing ten percent per year until they have reached 50 percent of
their original value. The ERC Program is intended to help the Atlanta
area achieve compliance with federal standards for ground-level ozone.
The ERC does not allow for any increase in emissions of NOX
or VOC in the area to which it is applicable. In this action, EPA is
approving the portion of Georgia's submission that makes changes to the
applicability, discounting and revocation, and administrative fees
sections of Rule 391-3-1-.03(13)--``Emission Reduction Credits.''

II. Analysis of State's Submittals

    The September 15, 2008, SIP revision involves changes to Georgia's
Rule 391-3-1-.03--``Permits'' paragraph (13)(a), which modifies
eligibility to participate in the ERC Program for stationary sources in
Barrow County by removing Barrow County from the list of counties with
sources eligible to create and bank NOX and VOC ERCs only
for electric generating units that have the potential to emit
NOX and VOC emissions in amounts greater than 100 tons per
year (tpy), and adding Barrow County to the list of counties with
sources eligible to create and bank NOX and VOC ERCs for any
stationary source that has the potential to emit NOX and VOC
emissions in amounts greater than 100 tpy. This change expands the
universe of stationary sources in Barrow County that may voluntarily
reduce NOX and VOC emissions and then credit those
reductions at an equal or reduced rate against future emissions of
those pollutants--thus incentivizing overall emissions reductions.
Accordingly, EPA is approving this change as SIP strengthening.

    Under paragraph (13)(d), Georgia removes a provision that
previously allowed ERCs created through the shutdown of individual
process equipment to retain their value indefinitely. Like ERCs created
through other methods, these ERCs will now retain their original value
for ten years, at which point they will begin devaluing ten percent per
year until they have reached 50 percent of their original value. EPA
has concluded that the removal of this provision will strengthen
Georgia's SIP because the change will decrease the value of these ERCs
when they are used to offset emissions occurring more than ten years in
the future, thus reducing overall emissions in areas where the Program
is implemented. Accordingly, EPA is approving the revision to the
Georgia SIP.
    Under paragraph (13)(d), Georgia adds a new provision that allows
owners to re-evaluate certificates of ERCs to determine if credits
specified in the certificate have been discounted or revoked in
accordance with the requirements of Rule 391-3-1-.03(13)(d)1. EPA is
approving this provision as consistent with section 110(a) of the CAA.
    Under paragraph (13)(h), Georgia revises the administrative fees
for the ERC Program. EPA is approving this provision as consistent with
section 110(a) of the CAA.
    EPA has concluded that these changes will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable progress,
nor any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is therefore
approving these changes to the Georgia SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Other portions of the September 15, 2008, submission were
previously approved, and therefore, are not before EPA for
consideration in this action. See 77 FR 59554 (September 28, 2012)
and 79 FR 36218 (June 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2017 (82 FR 44543), EPA proposed to approve the
above revisions to Georgia's SIP. The proposed rule accompanied a
direct final rule published on the same day in the Federal Register.
See 82 FR 44519. EPA received comments on the portion of the rulemaking
regarding EPA's method of revision to the Georgia SIP table at 40 CFR
52.570(c). Accordingly, EPA withdrew the direct final action. See 82 FR
55511.

III. Response to Comment

    As stated previously, EPA received comments on the direct final
rule. The comments are located in the docket for this action, and a
summary of the comments and EPA's response is provided below.
    Comment: The Commenter does not challenge the substance of the
State rule EPA has proposed to approve into Georgia's SIP. But the
Commenter disagrees with EPA's method of revision to the Georgia SIP
table at 40 CFR 52.570(c), arguing that EPA incorrectly updated the
``State effective date'' column to September 11, 2008, for Georgia Rule
391-3-1-03. The Commenter states that ``the table is supposed to
identify the regulations that have been approved by EPA into the SIP,
not simply identify the state-effective date of the version of the
regulations that EPA acted on most recently.'' According to the
Commenter, EPA's revision of the state effective date creates an
impression of approving a different version of Rule 391-3-1-.03 than
has actually been incorporated into the SIP.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that the September 25, 2017, rulemaking
action's change to the Georgia SIP table entry for Rule 391-3-1-.03 may
have created confusion. Accordingly, EPA has decided to revise the
table to minimize confusion.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.03(13)--``Emission Reduction Credits,'' state effective
September 11, 2008.\2\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, has been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The most recent state effective date for the version of
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(13) that EPA has approved, including the
version of Rule 391-3-1-.03(13)(a), (d), and (h) that are the
subject of this final action, is August 1, 2013. As a result, the
table at 40 CFR 51.570(c) will reflect the state effective for Rule
391-3-1-.03(13) as August 1, 2013, with the exception of subsection
.03(13)(c) as noted in the Explanation column of the table. In
addition, EPA is taking this opportunity to reformat the
identification of the SIP-approved portions of Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.03 in the table for ease of reference.
    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Georgia SIP
emissions reduction credits rule and the administrative fees found in
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(13) submitted on September 15, 2008, because
they are consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 28, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Adding an undesignated heading entitled ``Permits'' after the entry
``391-3-1-.02(14)'';
0
b. Revising the entry ``391-3-1-.03''; and
0
c. Adding entries for ``391-3-1-.03(1)'' through ``391-3-1-.03(8)'' and
``391-3-1-.03(11)'' through ``391-3-1-.03(13)''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
         State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.03:
    391-3-1-.03(1)..............  Construction (SIP)      8/17/1994  60 FR 45048, 8/30/    .....................
                                   Permit.                            1995
    391-3-1-.03(2)..............  Operating (SIP)        12/26/2001  67 FR 45909, 7/11/    With the exception of
                                   Permit.                            2002                  paragraph (e).
    391-3-1-.03(3)..............  Revocation,             2/23/1979  44 FR 54047, 9/18/    .....................
                                   Suspension,                        1979
                                   Modification or
                                   Amendment of
                                   Permits.
    391-3-1-.03(4)..............  Permits Not            11/20/1975  41 FR 35184, 8/20/    .....................
                                   Transferable.                      1976
    391-3-1-.03(5)..............  Permits Public         10/28/1992  61 FR 3819, 2/2/1996  .....................
                                   Records.
    391-3-1-.03(6)..............  Exemptions..........     8/9/2012  78 FR 21065, 4/9/     .....................
                                                                      2013
    391-3-1-.03(7)..............  Combined Permits and    2/23/1979  44 FR 54047, 9/18/    .....................
                                   Applications.                      1979
    391-3-1-.03(8)..............  Permit Requirements.     8/1/2013  82 FR 47993, 10/16/   Paragraph (g) is the
                                                                      2017                  version that was
                                                                                state- effective 9/
                                                                                13/2011.
    391-3-1-.03(11).............  Permit by Rule......    7/20/2005  75 FR 6309, 2/9/2010  .....................
    391-3-1-.03(12).............  Generic Permit......    8/17/1994  60 FR 45048, 8/30/    .....................
                                                                      1995
    391-3-1-.03(13).............  Emission Reduction      9/11/2008  3/14/2019, [Insert    Except subparagraph
                                   Credits.                           citation of           391-3-1-.03(13)(f),
                                                                      publication]          which was approved
                                                                                into the SIP with a
                                                                                state-effective date
                                                                                of 7/18/2001, and
                                                                                subparagraphs (b),
                                                                                (c), (e), (g), and
                                                                                (i), which were
                                                                                approved into the
                                                                                SIP with a state-
                                                                                effective date of 2/
                                                                                16/2000.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-04646 Filed 3-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TO:	Tom Walton

FROM:	Brooks Depro

DATE:	June 2, 2008

SUBJECT:	Economic Impact Analysis for Portland Cement NSPS

Using the engineering cost analysis inputs, we have prepared an initial
assessment of the economic impacts of the new source performance
standards for portland cement plants.  We report the new source unit
costs ($/metric ton of capacity), conduct sales tests and compare them
with industry operating profit rates, examine potential cement price and
consumption changes, and provide results of a small business screening
analysis.

Engineering Cost Analysis

Existing data on planned capacity expansions suggests 20 new kilns will
be constructed in the next 5 years.  EPA estimates up to four of these
kilns may use high sulfur raw materials while the remaining 16 will
likely use moderate or low sulfur raw materials.

The engineering cost analysis suggests new kiln using high sulfur raw
materials could potentially spend up to $6.4 million dollars per year to
meet the selected control options for NOx, SO2, and PM (see Table 1).
The average cost per ton of capacity is approximately $5.  In contrast,
new kilns using moderate or low sulfur raw materials could potentially
spend $1.5 million dollars per year.   The average cost per ton of
capacity is approximately $1.

Table 1.  Model Plant Costs (Clinker Capacity =1.1 million metric tons
per year)

Kiln Type	Number of Kilns (5-Year Period)	Total Annualized Costs
($Million)	New Source Unit Cost ($/metric ton of capacity)

High Sulfur Raw Materials	4	$6.4	$5

Moderate or Low Sulfur Raw Materials	16	$1.5	$1

Sales Test

Using a range of national price data and engineering unit cost data, we
conducted sales tests for two types of kilns (high sulfur raw materials
and moderate/low sulfur raw materials):

Sales Test Ratio= Control Costs ($/ton)/F.O.B Cement Prices ($/ton)

The USGS reports that the real price of cement per metric ton (2005
dollars) has typically ranged between $75 and $100 since 1990 (see
Figure 1).  For high sulfur raw material kilns, this implies a sales
test ratio between 5 to 7 percent. For moderate/low sulfur raw material
kilns, the sales test ratio is one to two percent.

Economic Impacts

From 2000 to 2006, the Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2007) reports
that the average operating profit rates for the industry ranged from 17
to 21 percent.  If this profit data is representative of operating
profit rates for new kilns, new kilns using high sulfur content raw
materials could potentially significantly reduce their operating profit
rates.  As a result, companies may have the incentive to look for less
expensive alternatives to meet the SO2 emission standards (e.g. lower
sulfur content materials or technologies other than wet scrubbers).
Although anecdotal evidence suggests these opportunities exist, EPA does
not currently have sufficient information to do a formal evaluation of
these alternatives.  If these alternatives are limited or not cost
effective, the NSPS may lead companies to consider delaying rates of
construction of these new kilns until market conditions change (e.g.
increases in demand that lead cement prices rise) to cover these
additional control costs.

We also considered potential market-level changes in prices and
consumption for markets anticipating entry of new kilns. If we consider
a long run partial equilibrium model with a horizontal market supply
function, the sales tests reported earlier also provide an estimate of
the percentage change in market price.  The sales tests suggest long run
cement price changes could range from one to seven percent, depending on
the actual baseline market cement price and the type of kiln entering
the market.  Applying EPA’s econometric estimate of the cement demand
elasticity (–0.88) to these price changes, cement consumption could
potentially fall between one to six percent.

We acknowledge these estimates likely overstate the price and
consumption impacts in markets with significant imports since this type
of competition tends to constrain market prices increases.  Although
import competition may mitigate prices increase and benefit cement
consumers, cement companies would be more likely to consider
construction delays in markets with strong import competition.  However,
preliminary analysis suggests that planned capacity expansions are
slated for markets that do not face substantial import competition.

Small Business Screening Analysis

Using the SBA firm size standards, existing data on planned capacity
expansions suggests one of the 20 kilns is considered small.  EPA’s
engineering analysis found that this company is unlikely to install a
wet scrubber to the meet the NSPS.  As a result, the sales test ratio
for this firm is estimated to be between one and two percent of sales.

Figure 1.	U.S. Cement Prices (F.O.B.):  1990 to 2007

Sources:	1990–2003: Kelly, T. and G. Matos. 2007  XE "Kelly, T. and G.
Matos. 2007b"  . “Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material
Commodities in the United States: Cement Supply and Demand
Statistics.” U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, Version 1.2.
Available at   HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/"
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ . Last modified April 11, 2006.

2004–2007: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
2008  XE "U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2008"
 . Minerals Commodity Summaries, Cement 2008. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior. Available at   HYPERLINK
"http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2008-cemen.
pdf"
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2008-cemen.p
df .  		        Price Deflator:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008. “Consumer Price Index All Items - U.S.
City Average Data: Customizable Data Tables.” Available at
<http://www.bls.gov/cpi/>. As obtained on March 14, 2008.

References:

Kelly, T. and G. Matos.  2007.  “Historical Statistics for Mineral and
Material Commodities in the United States:  Cement Supply and Demand
Statistics.”  U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, Version 1.2.
Available at:    HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/"
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/   Last Modified April 11, 2006.

Portland Cement Association (PCA). 2007. Annual Yearbook 2007. Skokie,
IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. Minerals
Commodity Summaries, Cement 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior.  Available at:    HYPERLINK
"http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2008-cemen.
pdf"
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2008-cemen.p
df

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008a. “Consumer
Price Index:  U.S. City Average, All Consumers; Series ID:
CUUR0000SA0.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008.
“Consumer Price Index All Items - U.S. City Average Data: Customizable
Data Tables.” Available at <http://www.bls.gov/cpi/>. As obtained on
March 14, 2008.

Tom Walton

  DATE  \@ "MMMM d, yyyy"  \* MERGEFORMAT  June 2, 2008

Page   PAGE  2


Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/28/2008 10:29 AM

To

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

next batch for Pb RIA docket

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:28 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/24/2008 10:50 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Grahame, Thomas"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

FW: paper which discusses vehicular emissions of various metals, including lead

Kathy and Lydia,

See attached from Tom at DOE.

heidi

From: Grahame, Thomas<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:45 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: paper which discusses vehicular emissions of various metals, including lead

<<Emissions.....pdf>>

Heidi, please distribute this to EPA,

Thanks,

Tom

Thomas J. Grahame

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Room 4G 036

Washington, D.C. 20585

202 586 7149 (voice)

202 586 7085 (fax)

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:28 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/24/2008 04:34 PM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Pace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: 2 missing slides from 10:00 meeting today

Thank you everyone, it was a very productive call this morning.

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:01 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: 2 missing slides from 10:00 meeting today

Heidi -- when I was revising the briefing hurriedly this morning, I

inadvertantly dropped these two slides (and duplicated the nonpoint

slides instead).

Here they are.  Feel free to share.

(Thanks to Chuck French and Tom Pace, to whom  I apologize.)

(See attached file: Top-Pb-SourceCategories-RIA.ppt)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

             Kathy

             Kaufman/RTP/USEP

             A/US                                                    To

                                      Joe Touma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy

             01/24/2008 09:48         Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin

             AM                       Cavender/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark

                                      Schmidt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard

                                      Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron

                                      Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim

                                      Hanley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom

                                      Pace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rudolph

                                      Kapichak/AA/USEPA/US, Meg

                                      Patulski/AA/USEPA/US

                                                                     cc

                                      Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Bryan

                                      Wood-Thomas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Douglas Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Elizabeth

                                      Southerland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Jeneva Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Larry Wallace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Lillian Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Marion Hoyer/AA/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Michael Rizzo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Onyemaechi Nweke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Rosalina

                                      Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Sharon Phillips/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Tamara Saltman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Tim Benner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler

                                      Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, William

                                      Silagi/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary

                                      Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      slides for 10:00 meeting today

Sorry this is late, all -- we were making some last minute revisions.

(See attached file: Pb Emissions Inventory and Monitoring 01-24-08 --

rev.ppt)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:28 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/31/2008 10:30 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for sharing wtih interagency folks?

Hi Kathy,

Whew, a pause in the questions on this rule.  I think we have nothing on calendar right now.

Do you have an electronic schedule for this rulemaking that I can share with interagency folk?  I only had a paper copy, and a couple of folks asked about timeline.

Thank you!

heidi

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:28 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 02/01/2008 03:04 PM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for sharing wtih interagency folks?

Thank you!

Forgive my foggy memory - Does the Administrator contribute to the

decision on which options to propose?

Thanks, Kathy!

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:30 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for

sharing wtih interagency folks?

oops -- Heidi I meant to get back to you sooner -- Deirdre is the keeper

of the current schedule, but of course the unknowable element is when we

will get decisions from above.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/31/2008 10:30                                        cc

             AM

                                                                Subject

                                      Kathy, do you have an electronic

                                      rule schedule for Pb for sharing

                                      wtih interagency folks?

Hi Kathy,

Whew, a pause in the questions on this rule.  I think we have nothing on

calendar right now.

Do you have an electronic schedule for this rulemaking that I can share

with interagency folk?  I only had a paper copy, and a couple of folks

asked about timeline.

Thank you!

heidi

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:28 AM -----

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 02/01/2008 04:09 PM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for sharing wtih interagency folks?

Thx!

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:11 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: RE: Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for

sharing wtih interagency folks?

Yes, he makes that decision.  So the timing is always somewhat out of

our hands.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             02/01/2008 03:04                                        cc

             PM

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Kathy, do you have an

                                      electronic rule schedule for Pb

                                      for sharing wtih interagency

                                      folks?

Thank you!

Forgive my foggy memory - Does the Administrator contribute to the

decision on which options to propose?

Thanks, Kathy!

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:30 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Kathy, do you have an electronic rule schedule for Pb for

sharing wtih interagency folks?

oops -- Heidi I meant to get back to you sooner -- Deirdre is the keeper

of the current schedule, but of course the unknowable element is when we

will get decisions from above.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/31/2008 10:30                                        cc

             AM

                                                                Subject

                                      Kathy, do you have an electronic

                                      rule schedule for Pb for sharing

                                      wtih interagency folks?

Hi Kathy,

Whew, a pause in the questions on this rule.  I think we have nothing on

calendar right now.

Do you have an electronic schedule for this rulemaking that I can share

with interagency folk?  I only had a paper copy, and a couple of folks

asked about timeline.

Thank you!

heidi


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8954-8955]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-52-000.
    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC, TERM Holdings,
LLC.
    Description: Amendment to December 14, 2015 Application under FPA
Section 203 of Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-70-000.
    Applicants: Portsmouth Genco, LLC, Virginia Renewable Power--
Portsmouth, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of
Portsmouth Genco, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-71-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of
Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-025.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160211-5242.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-543-003.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NMPC TSC formula compliance
revisions to

OATT Section 14.1 to be effective 7/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1041-004.
    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Prairie Breeze Wind
Energy II LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20160211-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-236-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-2-12_Att O-PSCo-SPS ADIT
Formula Deficiency to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-239-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 20160212_ADIT Deficiency Letter
Response to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-933-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service
Agmt San Jacinto Project to be effective 1/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-934-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Errata to Correct Metadata
to Cancellation of SA No. 3249, Queue No. W2-088 to be effective 2/5/
2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-935-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Cameron Ridge II,
LLC Cameron Ridge II Project to be effective 1/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-936-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-02-12_SA 2895 WPSC-WPSC
FCA (J392) to be effective 2/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-937-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to ISO-NE Tariff
Related to the Transmission Outage Process to be effective 4/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM16-1-000.
    Applicants: Nebraska Public Power District.
    Description: Application of Nebraska Public Power District to
Terminate Mandatory Purchase Obligation Under the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act.
    Filed Date: 2/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20160212-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

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

    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03611 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9259-9263]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02258]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79894; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of P.M.-
Settled NASDAQ-100 Index[supreg] Options on a Pilot Basis

January 30, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 18, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to permit the listing and trading of P.M.-
settled NASDAQ-100 Index[supreg] options on a pilot basis.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/ com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
(i) New P.M.-Settled NASDAQ-100 Index Options
    The purpose of this rule filing is to permit the listing and
trading, on a pilot basis, of NASDAQ-100 Index[supreg] (``NASDAQ-100'')
options with third-Friday-of-the-month (``Expiration Friday'')
expiration dates, whose exercise settlement value will be based on the
closing index value, symbol XQC, of the NASDAQ-100 on the expiration
day (``P.M.- settled'') for an initial period of twelve months (the
``Pilot Program'') from the date of approval of this proposed rule
change.
    The NASDAQ-100, a modified market capitalization-weighted index,
includes 100 of the largest non-financial companies listed on The
Nasdaq Stock Market, based on market capitalization. It does not
contain securities of financial companies including investment
companies. Security types generally eligible for the NASDAQ-100 include
common stocks, ordinary shares, American Depository Receipts, and
tracking stocks. Security or company types not included in the NASDAQ-
100 are closed-end funds, convertible debentures, exchange traded
funds, limited liability companies, limited partnership interests,
preferred stocks, rights, shares or units of beneficial interest,
warrants, units and other derivative securities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A description of the NASDAQ-100 is available on Nasdaq's Web
site at https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/methodology_NDX.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conditions for listing the proposed contract (``NDXPM'') on
Phlx will be similar to those for Full Value Nasdaq 100 Options
(``NDX''), which are already listed and trading on Phlx, except that
NDXPM will be P.M.-settled.\4\ The proposed contract would use a $100
multiplier, and the minimum trading increment would be $0.05 for
options trading below $3.00 and $0.10 for all other series.\5\ Strike
price intervals would be set at no less than $5.00.\6\ Consistent with
existing rules for index options, the Exchange would allow up to nine
near-term expiration months \7\ as well as LEAPS.\8\ The product would
have European-style exercise, and because it is based on the NASDAQ-
100, there would be no position limits.\9\ The Exchange has the
flexibility to open for trading additional series in response to
customer demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange currently lists an A.M. Reduced Value Nasdaq
100 Option, but does not at this time propose to list a reduced
value P.M. settled option based on the NASDAQ-100.
    \5\ See Rule 1034.
    \6\ See Rule 1101A, Terms of Option Contracts, section (a).
    \7\ The Exchange wishes to give the same expiration month
options for NDXPM as are given for NDX, since both options classes
are derived from the NASDAQ-100.
    \8\ Exchange Rule 1101A(b)(i) provides that after a particular
class of stock index options has been approved for listing and
trading on the Exchange, the Exchange shall from time to time open
for trading series of options therein. Within each approved class of
stock index options, the Exchange shall open for trading a minimum
of one expiration month and series for each class of approved stock
index options and may also open for trading series of options having
not less than nine and up to 60 months to expiration (long-term
options series) as provided in Rule 1101A(b)(iii). Rule
1101A(b)(iii) provides that The Exchange may list, with respect to
any class of stock index options, series of options having not less
than nine and up to 60 months to expiration, adding up to ten
expiration months. Such series of options may be opened for trading
simultaneously with series of options trading pursuant to Rule
1101A. Strike price interval, bid/ask differential and continuity
rules shall not apply to such options series until the time to
expiration is less than nine months.
    \9\ See proposed amendment to Rule 1001A(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with NDX, in determining compliance with Rule 1001A, Position
Limits, there will be no position limits for broad-based index option
contracts in the NDXPM class.\10\ Each member or member organization
(other than Registered Options Traders) that maintains a position on
the same side of the market in excess of 100,000 contracts for its own
account, or for the account of a customer, in the aggregate of (i) Full
Value Nasdaq 100 Options and (ii) NDXPM options, would be required to
file a report with the Exchange that includes, but is not limited to,
data related to the option positions, whether such positions are hedged
and if applicable, a description of the hedge and information
concerning collateral used to carry the positions.\11\ As with NDX,
there would be no exercise limits for NDXPM.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed amendment to Rule 1079(d).
    \11\ See Rule 1001A(c) as proposed to be revised.
    \12\ See Rule 1002A which provides that exercise limits for
index option contracts are equivalent to the position limits
described in Rule 1001A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with NDX, whenever the Exchange determines that additional
margin is warranted in light of the risks associated with an under-
hedged NDXPM option position, the Exchange may consider imposing
additional margin upon the account maintaining such under-hedged
position pursuant to its authority under Exchange Rules 1003(b) (for
non-FLEX options) and 1079(d)(2) (for FLEX options). The trading hours
for NDXPM will be from 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note that the trading hours for NDX end at 4:15 p.m. ET
rather than at 4:00 p.m. ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding NDXPM FLEX Options, there would be no position limits (as
with NDX FLEX Options). As with NDX FLEX Options, each member or member
organization (other than a Specialist or Registered Options Trader)
that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of
100,000 contracts for NDXPM FLEX Options, for its own account or for
the account of a customer, would be required to report information on
the FLEX equity option position, positions in any related instrument,
the purpose or strategy for the position and the collateral used by the
account. The report would be required to be in the form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange. Like NDX FLEX Options, there would be no
exercise limits for NDXPM FLEX Options (including reduced-value option
contracts).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 1079(d), as proposed to be revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, whenever the Exchange determined that a higher margin
requirement was necessary in light of the risks associated with a NDXPM
FLEX Option position in excess of the standard limit for NDXPM non-FLEX
options of the same class, the Exchange could consider imposing
additional margin upon the account maintaining such under-hedged
position. Additionally, the clearing firm carrying the account would be
subject to capital charges under SEC rule 15c3-1 to the

extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin
requirement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 1079(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To explain the basic adoption of NDXPM, the Exchange proposes to
add Commentary .05 to Rule 1101A, Terms of Options Contracts. This
proposed new Commentary would provide that in addition to A.M.-settled
Full Value Nasdaq 100 Options approved for trading on the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 1101A Commentary .01, the Exchange may also list
options on the NASDAQ-100 Index whose exercise settlement value is the
closing value of the NASDAQ-100 Index on the expiration day.\16\ NDXPM
options would be listed for trading for an initial pilot period ending
twelve months from the date of approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Note that the closing value of the NASDAQ-100 may change up
until 17:15 ET due to corrections to prices of the underlying
component securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Precedent exists for P.M. settlement of broad-based index options.
SPXPM (a P.M. settled index option contract based on the Standard &
Poor's 500 index) is traded on the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE''). Further, OEX (an index option contract based on the
Standard & Poor's 100 index) is also traded on CBOE and has been P.M.-
settled since 1983. The Exchange does not believe that any market
disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled
NASDAQ-100 index options. The Exchange will monitor for any such
disruptions or the development of any factors that could cause such
disruptions.
    The Exchange also notes that P.M.-settled options predominate in
the OTC market, and Phlx is not aware of any adverse effects in the
stock market attributable to the P.M.-settlement feature. Phlx is
merely proposing to offer a P.M.-settled product in an exchange
environment which offers the benefit of added transparency, price
discovery, and stability. In response to any potential concerns that
disruptive trading conduct could occur as a result of the concurrent
listing and trading of two index option products based on the same
index but for which different settlement methodologies exist (i.e., one
is A.M.-settled and one is P.M.-settled), the Exchange notes that CBOE
lists and trades both the A.M.-settled S&P 500 index option called SPX
and a P.M.-settled S&P 500 index option, SPXPM. Phlx is not aware of
any market disruptions occurring as a result of CBOE offering both
products.
    The adoption of trading of P.M.-settled options on the NASDAQ-100
Index on the same exchange that lists A.M.-settled options on the
NASDAQ-100 Index would provide greater spread opportunities. This
manner of trading in different products allows a market participant to
take advantage of the different expiration times, providing expanded
trading opportunities. In the options market currently, market
participants regularly trade similar or related products in conjunction
with each other, which contributes to overall market liquidity.
    The Exchange represents that it has sufficient capacity to handle
additional traffic associated with this new listing, and that it has in
place adequate surveillance procedures to monitor trading in these
options thereby helping to ensure the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market.
(ii) Pilot Program Reports
    As proposed, the proposal would become effective on a Pilot Program
basis for period of twelve months. If the Exchange were to propose an
extension of the program or should the Exchange propose to make the
program permanent, then the Exchange would submit a filing proposing
such amendments to the program. The Exchange notes that any positions
established under the pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of
the pilot. For example, a position in a P.M.-settled series that
expires beyond the conclusion of the pilot period could be established
during the 12-month pilot. If the Pilot Program were not extended, then
the position could continue to exist. However, the Exchange notes that
any further trading in the series would be restricted to transactions
where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.
    The Exchange proposes to submit a Pilot Program report to
Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the
Pilot Program (the ``annual report''). The annual report would contain
an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The
analysis would examine trading in the proposed option product as well
as trading in the securities that comprise the NASDAQ-100 index. In
addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest
parameters, the annual report would provide analysis of index price
volatility and share trading activity. In addition to the annual
report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with periodic interim
reports while the pilot is in effect that would contain some, but not
all, of the information contained in the annual report. The annual
report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis. The
annual report would contain the following volume and open interest
data:
    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;
    (2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;
    (3) monthly volume for each individual series;
    (4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;
    (5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration
date; and
    (6) month-end open interest for each individual series.
    In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the
Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1)
through (6) above periodically as required by the Commission while the
pilot is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a
confidential basis. The annual report would also contain the
information noted in Items (1) through (6) above for Expiration Friday,
A.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 index options traded on Phlx.
    In addition, the annual report would contain the following analysis
of trading patterns in Expiration Friday, P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 index
option series in the pilot: (1) A time series analysis of open
interest; and (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes. Also,
for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual report
would contain the following analysis related to index price changes and
underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays: A
comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given
Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control sample.
The data would include a calculation of percentage price changes for
various time intervals and compare that information to the respective
control sample. The Exchange would provide a calculation of share
volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an
upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-
the-money series. The data would include a comparison of the calculated
share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily
trading volumes of those securities over a sample period. The minimum
open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for
randomly selecting the component securities, and sample periods would
be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in that it is designed 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; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
also consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \19\ in that it does
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the introduction of NDXPM options will attract order flow
to the Exchange, increase the variety of listed options to investors,
and provide a valuable hedge tool to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously stated that when cash-settled index
options were first introduced in the 1980s, they generally utilized
closing-price settlement procedures (i.e., P.M. settlement). The
Commission stated it became concerned about the impact of P.M.
settlement on cash-settled index options on the markets for the
underlying stocks at the close on expiration Fridays especially during
the quarterly expirations of the third Friday of March, June, September
and December when options, index futures, and options on index futures
all expire simultaneously. The Commission expressed concerns that p.m.-
settlement was believed to have contributed to above-average volume and
added market volatility on those days, which sometimes led to sharp
price movements during the last hour of trading, as a consequence of
which the close of trading on the quarterly expiration Friday became
known as the ``triple witching hour.'' The Commission observed that
besides contributing to investor anxiety, heightened volatility during
the expiration periods created the opportunity for manipulation and
other abusive trading practices in anticipation of the liquidity
constraints.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55569 (September 9, 2011) (approving SR-C2-2011-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Exchange believes that the above concerns that have
led to the transition to a.m. settlement for index derivatives have
been largely mitigated. It believes that expiration pressure in the
underlying cash markets at the close has been greatly reduced with the
advent of multiple primary listing and unlisted trading privilege
markets, and that trading is now widely dispersed among many market
centers. Additionally, the Exchange notes that opening procedures in
the 1990s were deemed acceptable to mitigate one-sided order flow
driven by index option expiration and that Nasdaq uses an automated
closing cross procedure and has a closing order type that facilitates
orderly closings. The Nasdaq closing procedures are well-equipped to
mitigate imbalance pressure at the close. In addition, after-hours
trading now provides market participants with an alternative to help
offset market-on-close imbalances.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ C2 made similar arguments to justify Commission approval of
listing of SPXPM. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. NDXPM options would be
available for trading to all market participants. The proposed rule
change will facilitate the listing and trading of a novel option
product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the
benefit of investors and the marketplace. The listing of NDXPM will
enhance competition by providing investors with an additional
investment vehicle, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through
which investors can gain and hedge exposure to NASDAQ-100 stocks.
Further, this product could offer a competitive alternative to other
existing investment products that seek to allow investors to gain broad
market exposure. Also, the Exchange notes that it is possible for other
exchanges to develop or license the use of a new or different index to
compete with the NASDAQ-100 and seek Commission approval to list and
trade options on such an index.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02258 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7734]
[DOCID:fr19fe09-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Plenary Meeting, NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task
Force

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 4, 2009 starting at 9 a.m. to 12
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Discovery Ballroom, Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW.,
Corner of 6th & C Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20024 (Metro: L'Enfant
Plaza Station, Use 7th & Maryland Exit).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force
meeting. The agenda will include:
     Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions)
     Welcome and Introductions
     Work Group 1 Status Report and Planned Activities
     Work Group 2 Status Report and Planned Activities
     Review of NextGen TF Report to ATMAC on March 5
     Discussion and Next Steps
     Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production, Date
and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-3503 Filed 2-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71429]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13868-000]

Qualified Hydro 33, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

November 16, 2010.
    On October 15, 2010, Qualified Hydro 33, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Crooked Creek Dam
Hydroelectric Project to be located on Crooked Creek near Ford City, in
Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project will consist of the following: (1) One
vertical Kaplan turbine-generator with a capacity of 2 megawatts; (2) a
100-foot-long steel liner and a bifurcated penstock leading to the
powerhouse; (3) a 40-foot by 50-foot concrete powerhouse; (4) a new 2
MVA substation adjacent to the powerhouse; (5) a 2,750-foot-long
transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Crooked Creek Dam Hydroelectric Project would be
10,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Qualified Hydro 33, LLC, 33
Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Allyson Conner,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13868-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29444 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P