[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53498-53499]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A.,
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard 49 CFR part 541, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. FUSA requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. The agency has
addressed FUSA's request for confidential treatment by letter dated
June 28, 2013. However, FUSA has stated that it will provide the agency
with the nameplate of the vehicle prior to its introduction for sale
into commerce in order to allow the agency to notify law enforcement
agencies and the public of a new vehicle line exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2015 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 6, 2013, FUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line, beginning with the 2015 MY. The petition has been filed
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, FUSA
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Subaru
[confidential] vehicle line. FUSA stated that it will install a
passive, electronic-immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment
on its Subaru [confidential] vehicle line. The device will control

engine ignition, fuel delivery and starter motor operation.
    FUSA stated that its device immobilization will facilitate and
encourage activation by motorists because it requires nothing more than
normal removal of the key from the ignition switch when the vehicle is
not in use. The device will also include a visible and audible alarm
with a panic mode feature. The alarm system will monitor the vehicle's
door status and key identification. Any unauthorized effort to open a
door or enter or move the vehicle will activate the alarm system
causing the horn to sound and the hazard lamps to flash. FUSA's
submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, FUSA
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, FUSA
conducted tests based on its own specified standards and provided a
list of information of the tests it conducted. FUSA believes that its
device is reliable and durable because the device complied with its own
specific requirements for each test. Additionally, FUSA stated that
because the immobilization features are designed and constructed within
the vehicle's overall Controller Area Network Electrical Architecture,
the antitheft device cannot be separated and controlled independently
of this network. Furthermore, availability of a correct key will not
defeat the electronic immobilization features of the key/vehicle
antitheft device interface.
    FUSA stated that it believes that historically, NHTSA has seen a
decreasing theft rate trend when electronic immobilization has been
added to alarm systems. FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer
devices on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza, XV
Crosstrek, Legacy, and Outback models) and it believes the data shows
immobilization has had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. FUSA also noted that recent state-by-state theft results from
the National Insurance Crime Bureau reported that in only 6 of the 50
states listed in its results, and the District of Columbia, not any
Subaru vehicle appeared in its top 10 list of stolen vehicles. Review
of the theft rates published by the agency for Subaru vehicles through
the years (2007-2010) revealed that, while there is some variation, the
theft rates for Subaru vehicles have on average, remained below the
median theft rate of 3.5826.
    FUSA also provided a comparative table showing how its device is
similar to other manufacturers' devices that have already been granted
an exemption by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA makes note of Federal
Register notices published by NHTSA in which manufacturers have stated
that they have seen reductions in theft due to the immobilization
systems being used. Specifically, FUSA notes claims by Ford Motor
Company that its 1997 Mustangs with immobilizers saw a 70% reduction in
theft compared to its 1995 Mustangs without immobilizers. FUSA also
noted its reliance on theft rates published by the agency which showed
that theft rates were lower for Jeep Grand Cherokee immobilizer-
equipped vehicles (model year 1999 through 2003) compared to older
parts-marked Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles (model year 1995 through
1998). FUSA stated that it believes its device is likely to be no less
effective than those installed on lines for which the agency has
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicles lines for which the agency has already
granted exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by FUSA, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that FUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information FUSA provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full FUSA's
petition for exemption for the Subaru vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If FUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully
marked as required by 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if FUSA wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: August 16, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21125 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18792-18795]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80468; File No. SR-PEARL-2017-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

April 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The Exchange initially filed the proposal on March 29, 2017 (SR-
PEARL-2017-14). That filing was withdrawn and replaced with the current
filing (SR-PEARL-2017-18).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX's
principal office, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to permit Exchange
Market Makers \3\ to appoint Electronic Exchange Members \4\
(``EEMs''), and vice versa, as ``Affiliates,'' solely for purposes of
calculating transaction volume in order to qualify for certain
transaction rebate and fee incentives under the Fee Schedule. The
Exchange notes that this concept of appointment between market makers
and order flow providers currently exists at a number of other
exchanges, including Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''), NYSE Amex Options LLC (``Amex Options''), and NASDAQ PHLX
LLC (``PHLX''), as more fully discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with the
Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of the Exchange's Rules.
See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the
holder of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent
Public Customer Orders and Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and
those non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading. EEMs
are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the Exchange to implement this concept of appointment,
the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``Affiliate''
contained in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule. The
definition of ``Affiliate'' currently reads:
    ``Affiliate'' means an affiliate of a Member of at least 75% common
ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A.

The Exchange proposes to amend the definition so that it instead reads:
    ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least 75%
common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an Appointed EEM (or,
conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed Market Maker). An
``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX PEARL Market Maker (who does not
otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with
an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM and an ``Appointed EEM'' is
an EEM (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon
common ownership with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker) that has been
appointed by a MIAX PEARL Market Maker, pursuant to the following
process. A MIAX PEARL Market Maker appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints
a MIAX PEARL Market Maker, for the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by
each completing and sending an executed Volume Aggregation Request Form
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than 2 business days
prior to the first business day of the month in which the designation
is to become effective. Transmittal of a validly completed and executed
form to the Exchange along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of the
effective designation to each of the Market Maker and EEM will be
viewed as acceptance of the appointment. The Exchange will only
recognize one designation per Member. A Member may make a designation
not more than once every 12 months (from the date of its most recent
designation), which designation shall remain in effect unless or until
the Exchange receives written notice submitted 2 business days prior to
the first business day of the month from either Member indicating that
the appointment has been terminated. Designations will become operative
on the first business day of the effective month and may not be
terminated prior to the end of the month. Execution data and reports
will be provided to both parties.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase
opportunities for EEMs and Market Makers, who do not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL
Market Maker or EEM, as the case may be, to potentially qualify for
tiered pricing incentives on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to allow a MIAX PEARL Market Maker to designate an EEM as its
``Appointed EEM'' and for an EEM to designate a MIAX PEARL Market Maker

as its ``Appointed Market Maker'' for purposes of Section 1(a) of the
Fee Schedule. Members of the Exchange would effectuate such designation
by completing and sending an executed Volume Aggregation Request Form
by email to the Exchange no later than 2 business days prior to the
first business day of the month in which the designation is to become
effective.\5\ As specified in the proposed Fee Schedule, the Exchange
would view the transmittal of the validly completed and executed form
along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of the effective designation
as acceptance of such an appointment.\6\ The proposed new concepts
would be applicable to all tiered pricing offered by the Exchange in
Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule, and are designed to increase
opportunities for Members to qualify for such tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Members should direct their executed forms to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    \6\ The Exchange further notes that, as proposed, the Exchange
would only recognize one such designation for each party once every
12 months (from the date of its most recent designation), which
designation would remain in effect unless or until the Exchange
receives written notice submitted 2 business days prior to the first
business day of the month from either party indicating that the
appointment has been terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers tiers of rebates and fees as
described in Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule. Under the current tiers,
Members that achieve certain volume criteria may qualify for reduced
fees or enhanced rebates for various executions, including executions
of Priority Customer \7\ and Market Maker orders. In connection with
such tiers, the Exchange calculates on a monthly basis a Member's
volume in the applicable category (e.g., Priority Customer orders or
Market Maker orders), as specified in the Fee Schedule for each
applicable transaction.\8\ For example, upon reaching a volume
threshold that qualifies a Member for a specified tier under the Add/
Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees scale, a Member receives the enhanced rebate
or reduced fee associated with the tier achieved for each eligible
contract executed within that tier on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s).
    \8\ For example, under Section 1(a), volume thresholds are
calculated based on the total monthly volume executed by the Member
on MIAX PEARL in the relevant Origin type, not including Excluded
Contracts, (as the numerator) expressed as a percentage of (divided
by) TCV (as the denominator). The per contract transaction rebates
and fees shall be applied retroactively to all eligible volume once
the threshold has been reached by Member. The Exchange aggregates
the volume of Members and their Affiliates in the Add/Remove Tiered
Fees. ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX PEARL for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period time in which the Exchange experiences an
Exchange System Disruption (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine). ``Exchange System Disruption'' means an
outage of a Matching Engine or collective Matching Engines for a
period of two consecutive hours or more, during trading hours.
``Matching Engine'' is a part of the MIAX PEARL electronic system
that processes options orders and trades on a symbol-by-symbol
basis. Some Matching Engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other Matching Engines may be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY may be
processed by one single Matching Engine that is dedicated only to
SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single
designated Matching Engine. A particular root symbol may not be
assigned to multiple Matching Engines. See the Definitions Section
of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current Fee Schedule, a Member is permitted to
aggregate volume with a Member's ``Affiliates'', which are defined as
firms that have at least 75% common ownership with the Member as
reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A.\9\ Thus, Members that act
as EEMs with affiliated broker-dealers that are Market Makers on the
Exchange, and vice-versa, may be able to potentially qualify for
certain pricing incentives offered by the Exchange based on such
affiliation and aggregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See the definition of ``Affiliate'' in the Definitions
section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that all MIAX PEARL Market Makers who do not
otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with
an EEM (whether in the same broker-dealer or in a separate broker-
dealer) would be able to appoint an EEM to aggregate its volume for
purposes of reaching tier thresholds under the Fee Schedule, and
conversely, all EEMs who do not otherwise have a corporate affiliation
based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker (whether in
the same broker-dealer or in a separate broker-dealer) could appoint a
MIAX PEARL Market Maker for the same purposes.\10\ The proposal would
be available to all MIAX PEARL Market Makers and EEMs, except for those
MIAX PEARL Market Makers who otherwise have a corporate affiliation
based upon common ownership with an EEM (and vice versa). The proposed
change would enable a MIAX PEARL Market Maker without an affiliated EEM
to enter into a relationship with an Appointed EEM. By virtue of
designating an Appointed Market Maker, an EEM benefits by establishing
an execution relationship with a MIAX PEARL Market Maker that may
potentially provide greater liquidity to trade with its own Priority
Customer volume. To be clear, the Exchange notes that an EEM that has a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL
Market Maker may only aggregate volumes with its corporate-affiliated
MIAX PEARL Market Maker, and not with any other MIAX PEARL Market
Maker. Further, MIAX PEARL Market Makers that have multiple Market
Maker memberships which are already aggregated by the Exchange for
purposes of qualifying the Member for tiered pricing incentives will be
treated as a single entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission notes that the Exchange calculates on a
monthly basis a Member's volume in the applicable category (e.g.,
Priority Customer orders or Market Maker orders), as specified in
the Fee Schedule for each applicable transaction. See supra note 8
and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the proposed changes would enable Members that may not
currently qualify for tiered pricing incentives to potentially avail
themselves of such incentives, as well as to assist Members to
potentially achieve a higher tier, thus qualifying for higher rebates
or reduced transaction fees. The Exchange believes these proposed
changes would incentivize Members to direct their order flow to the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage MIAX PEARL
Market Makers to increase their participation on the Exchange, which
would increase capital commitment and liquidity on the Exchange to the
benefit of all market participants.
    As proposed, the Exchange will only recognize one such designation
for each party once every 12 months (from the date of its most recent
designation), which designation would remain in effect unless or until
the parties informed the Exchange of its termination.\11\ The Exchange
believes that this requirement would impose a measure of exclusivity
and would enable both parties to rely upon each other's transaction
volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase such
volumes, which is beneficial to all Exchange participants. Other
exchanges have adopted similar concepts and permit their market makers
and order flow providers to appoint one another for purposes of volume
aggregation to reach higher volume tier thresholds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77524 (April 5,
2016), 81 FR 21417 (April 11, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-04); 77526
(April 5, 2016), 81 FR 21405 (April 11, 2016) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-05);
77926 (May 26, 2016), 81 FR 35421 (June 2, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-045);
78382 (July 21, 2016), 81 FR 49293 (July 27,2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX PEARL believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities, and
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed fees and rebates are
reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory for the
following reasons. First, the proposal would be available to all MIAX
PEARL Market Makers and EEMs (except for those MIAX PEARL Market Makers
who otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership
with an EEM (and vice versa)), and the decision to be designated as an
``Appointed EEM'' or ``Appointed Market Maker'' is completely voluntary
and Members may elect to accept this appointment or not. Excluding
Members that have a corporate affiliation by common ownership from also
appointing other Members as ``Affiliates'' is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because those Members are already eligible to
aggregate volume and thus potentially qualify for tiered pricing
incentives. In addition, the proposed changes would enable Members that
are not able to achieve tiered pricing incentives to potentially avail
themselves of such pricing as well as to assist Members that are
currently able to achieve such tiers to potentially achieve a higher
tier, thus qualifying for higher rebates or lower fees. The Exchange
believes these proposed changes would incentivize Members to direct
their order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the proposed changes
would enable any MIAX PEARL Market Maker (except for those MIAX PEARL
Market Makers who otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon
common ownership with an EEM) to qualify its Appointed EEM for purposes
of potential tiered pricing incentives. Moreover, the proposed change
would allow any EEM (except for those EEMs who otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX Market
Maker), by virtue of designating an Appointed Market Maker, to
establish an execution relationship with a MIAX Market Maker that may
potentially provide greater liquidity to trade with its own volume,
including Priority Customer volume. The Exchange believes these
proposed changes would incentivize Appointed EEMs with an Appointed
Market Maker to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which would
result in an increase in orders routed to the Exchange which in turn
would benefit all market participants by expanding liquidity and
providing more trading opportunities on the Exchange. Similarly, the
Exchange believes these proposed changes would incentivize Appointed
Market Makers with an Appointed EEM to increase their participation on
the Exchange, which would increase capital commitment and liquidity and
decrease spreads on the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants. The Exchange believes that, similar to volume-based tiers
offered by the Exchange, the benefits of the proposal extend to all
market participants based on the increased quality of liquidity on the
Exchange, including those market participants that opt not to become an
Appointed EEM or Appointed Market Maker.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and
equitably allocated because it is beneficial to all Exchange
participants based on the fact that it enables parties to rely upon
each other's transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and
potentially increase such volumes. In turn, as above, the potential
increase in order flow, capital commitment and resulting liquidity on
the Exchange would benefit all market participants by expanding
liquidity, providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The proposal is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would only recognize one such
designation for each party once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), which requirement would impose a measure of
exclusivity while allowing both parties to rely upon each other's
transaction volumes executed on the Exchange, and potentially increase
such volumes, again, to the benefit of all market participants.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory and facilitates trading as it may
encourage an increase in orders routed to the Exchange, which would
expand liquidity and provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to the benefit of all market participants, even to those market
participants that are either currently affiliated by virtue of their
common ownership or that opt not to become an Appointed EEM or
Appointed Market Maker under this proposal. Other exchanges have
adopted similar concepts.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to its
fee schedule will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are pro-competitive as they would
increase opportunities for MIAX PEARL Market Makers and EEMs (who do
not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership
with an EEM, and MIAX PEARL Market Maker, respectively) to potentially
qualify for tiered pricing incentives on the Exchange, which may
increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incentivizing
participants to direct their orders to the Exchange thereby increasing
the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange. Enhanced market quality
and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated
increase in order flow directed to the Exchange would benefit all
market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
At any time

within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2017-18 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-PEARL-2017-18. 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-PEARL-2017-18, and should be
submitted on or before May 12, 2017.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08058 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9716-9720]
[DOCID:fr27fe06-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 69

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0506; FRL-8030-3]

State Implementation Plan Revision and Alternate Permit Program;
Territory of Guam

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to grant full approval
for the Guam operating permit program and an associated State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Territory of Guam
(Guam). These submittals correct deficiencies identified in EPA's
direct final interim approval rulemaking of January 9, 2003 (68 FR
1162). Final approval of Guam's alternate permit program and associated
SIP revision will allow sources to be permitted under an approved
alternate permit program. This alternate program fulfills all of the
requirements that Guam adopt and submit an alternate local permitting
program as part of a conditional exemption under section 325 of the
Clean Air Act (Act) from Title V of the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 28, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 29, 2006. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2005-0506, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers

receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment

system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Machol, EPA Region IX, at (415)
972-3770, (Machol.Ben@epa.gov), Pacific Islands Office, or Ed Pike, at
(415) 972-3970<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Permits Office, Air Division, at the
EPA-Region IX address listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Final Action and Implications
    A. Effect of Final Approval of Guam's Alternate Permit Program
    B. How Guam's Alternate Permitting Program Meets the
Requirements for Full Approval
III. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

    Section 325(a) of the Act authorizes the Administrator of EPA, upon
petition by the Governor, to exempt any person or source or class of
persons in Guam, from any requirement of the Act except for
requirements of section 110 and part D of subchapter I of the Act
(where necessary to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards), and section 112. An exemption may be granted if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirement is not
feasible or is unreasonable due to unique geographical, meteorological,
or economic factors of such territory, or such other local factors as
the Administrator deems significant.
    The Governor of Guam previously submitted a petition pursuant to
section 325(a) of the Act for an exemption from Title V of the Act.
Title V requires states, including Guam, to adopt and submit to EPA a
Title V operating permit program for major sources and certain other
stationary sources. If any state does not adopt an operating permit
program, Title V requires EPA to apply certain sanctions within that
area and to promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating
permit program for such area. Title V requires that sources located in
states that do not adopt a Title V permitting program obtain a Federal
operating permit from the EPA. Guam requested an exemption from the
Title V program, but committed to achieving key goals of Title V by
developing an alternate operating permit program.
    On November 13, 1996, EPA issued a direct final rule (61 FR 58289),
codified at 40 CFR 69.13 (the conditional exemption) that granted the
government of Guam an exemption from the requirement to adopt a Title V
program on the condition that Guam adopt and implement a local
alternate operating permit program. EPA also granted owners or
operators of certain sources on Guam a conditional exemption from the
requirement to apply for a Federal Title V operating permit under part
71. That rulemaking does not waive or exempt the government of Guam, or
owners or operators of sources located in Guam, from complying with all
other applicable Clean Air Act provisions.
    On January 13, 1999, Guam submitted an alternate permit program,
consisting of Guam's Air Pollution Control Standards and Regulations
(Guam's Regulations), along with supporting documents and authorizing
legislation. EPA granted interim approval to that program on January 9,
2003 and listed necessary corrections to qualify for full approval.
Guam submitted program corrections on June 30, 2005 that EPA believes
meet the requirements for full approval, as explained below in section
II.B.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Effect of Final Approval of Guam's Alternate Permit Program

    EPA is granting full approval of the alternate permit program
submitted by Guam. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to grant full approval to Guam's part
69 alternate permitting program if adverse comments are filed. This
rule will be effective on April 28, 2006 without further notice unless
we receive adverse comment by March 29, 2006. If EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action and any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. This includes any comments regarding additional changes (see the
Guam EPA Technical Support Document) that are not related to the
requirements for full approval. The effect of this full approval is to
provide Guam with approval to issue operating permits to all sources
subject to their approved permit program, based on our determination
that Guam has met the part 69 requirements for submitting an approvable
part 69 alternate permitting program.
    EPA is also now removing 40 CFR 69.13(f)(2) for several reasons.
EPA's 2003 interim approval established a deadline of October 9, 2004
in Sec.  69.13(f)(2) to submit a fully approvable program. While Guam
did not submit a fully approvable program by that date, Guam has now
met the substantive operating permit program requirements of part 69.
In addition, Guam has implemented the program by processing permit
applications and drafting operating permits. Thus, it would be
administratively burdensome and duplicative to implement a Federal
permitting program now that the alternative permitting program has met
the substantive requirements of the part 69 conditional waiver. In
addition, EPA has not yet begun the process of drafting Federal
operating permits on Guam. Because Guam EPA expects to issue operating
permits soon, it would be counterproductive to delay the air quality
benefits of permitting sources on Guam by implementing a Federal part

71 permitting program at this time. We will instead remove Sec.
69.13(f)(2) to allow Guam to finalize the part 69 permits that it has
drafted. This action fully approving Guam's alternative operating
permit program does not change any of the other conditions in 40 CFR
69.13.
    EPA is granting full approval only to those portions of Guam's
Regulations that are necessary to implement Guam's alternate permit
program, as required by the part 69 conditional exemption as part of
the exemptions from the Title V program. This approval does not
constitute approval under any other provisions of the Act. Except as
provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the conditional
exemption continue unchanged. The scope of the exemptions set forth in
the conditional exemption continues unchanged. EPA continues to reserve
its authority to revoke or modify the exemptions in whole or in part.

B. How Guam's Revisions To Alternate Permitting Program Meet the
Requirements for Full Approval

1. State Implementation Plan Revision Provides Program Enforceability
    40 CFR 69.13(c) states that Guam shall submit a revision to its SIP
that provides that a person shall not violate a permit condition or
term in an operating permit that has been issued under an EPA approved
alternate operating permit program adopted by Guam pursuant to the
exemption authorized in 40 CFR 69.13. 40 CFR 69.13(f)(3) states that
Guam must adopt this revision through the appropriate procedures, which
we believe is inherently also required by 40 CFR 69.13(c). Guam has
adopted this requirement in section 1104.26 of their Guam Air Pollution
Control Standards and Regulations and submitted evidence of
procedurally correct adoption. EPA is approving this section into the
SIP through this rulemaking (Please note that Guam has only requested
SIP approval of section 1104.26, and has not requested SIP-approval of
other rules, as part of this action).
2. Guam Has Clarified EPA's Permit Reopening Authority
    EPA believes that the rule revisions address EPA's permit reopening
authority. The rule states that Guam EPA will address EPA reopening
determinations within 180 days, and that if issues are not resolved
within 180 days, then USEPA shall issue the permit under part 71. This
is consistent with the requirements for full approval of the Guam
program.
3. Guam Has Authority for Injunctive Relief
    40 CFR 69.13(b)(6) requires that the alternate operating permit
program provide Guam EPA with the authority to enjoin activities that
are in violation of the permit, the program, or the Act without first
revoking a permit. Guam has revised section 1104.25 of the permitting
program to reference section 49115 of chapter 49, part 2, division 2,
part 1 of title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated, which provide Guam EPA
with the proper authority.
4. Guam Has Clarified the Scope of Program Submittal
    Guam EPA has clarified in the program submittal letter dated June
30, 2005, that the program includes the following sections of the Guam
Air Pollution Control Standards and Regulations in addition to the
other relevant sections of these regulations:

Section 1102.3 Certification
Section 1102.7 Public Access to Information
Section 1102.9 Prompt Reporting of Deviations
Section 1106 Standards of Performance for Air Pollution Emission
Sources
5. Guam Has Clarified Program Definitions and Section 1104.2(b)
    Guam has adopted verbatim the language changes 1 through 4 and 6
required by EPA (see Section 5 of the ``Conditions for Full Approval''
September 24, 2002 Technical Support Document). The September 2004
Technical Support Document for Revisions to the Guam Air Pollution
Control Standards and Regulations explains that these changes were
adopted.
    Guam has made additional changes in response to clarifications that
we requested regarding insignificant activities. Guam has clarified
that only specific activities, rather than ``sources,'' can qualify for
treatment as insignificant. EPA believes that the rules now adequately
explain that the basis for determining what is ``insignificant'' will
be determined activity-by-activity. Section 1104.6(e) has been re-
titled to ``Insignificant Activities at a federal oversight source''
because it explains how insignificant activities will be addressed in
permit applications, and references to minor sources were removed.

III. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a (major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 28, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 69

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Guam.

    Dated: January 20, 2006.
Laura Yoshii,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AAA--Guam

0
2. In Sec.  52.2670, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for Section 1104.26 under ``Chapter 03.10, 3.11 and 03.13'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   EPA Approved Territory of Guam Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Effective
         State citation              Title/subject         date       EPA approval  date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1104.26.................  Permit Compliance..     06/03/05   02/27/06...........  ......................
                                                                     [Insert page number
                                                                      where document
                                                                      begins].

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

0
Part 69, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 69--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7545(c), (g) and (i), and 7625-1.

Subpart A--Guam

0
2. Subpart A is amended by revising Sec.  69.13(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  69.13  Title V conditional exemption.

* * * * *
    (f) Final approval of alternate permit program.
    (1) The following sections of Guam's Air Pollution Control
Standards and Regulations are granted final approval as Guam's
alternate permit program:

    1101.1(a) Administrator
    1101.1(d) Air pollutant
    1101.1(e) Air pollution
    1101.1(i) Air pollution emission source
    1101.1(r) CFR
    1101.1(s) Clean Air Act
    1101.1(t) Commenced
    1101.1(v) Compliance Plan
    1101.1(aa) Emission
    1101.1(cc) Emissions unit
    1101.1(ii) Fugitive Emissions
    1101.1(jj) GEPA
    1101.1(kk) Hazardous air pollutant
    1101.1(xx) Owner or operator
    1101.1(zz) Permit
    1101.1(bbb) Person
    1101.1(eee) Potential to emit
    1101.1(iii) Regulated air pollutant
    1101.1(jjj) Responsible official
    1101.1(ooo) Source
    1101.1(uuu) USEPA
    1101.1(vvv) USEPA Administrator
    1102.3 Certification
    1102.7 Public Access to Information
    1102.9 Prompt Reporting of Deviations
    1104.1 Definitions
    (a) Administrative Permit Amendment
    (b) AP-42
    (c) Applicable requirement
    (d) Federal oversight source
    (e) Insignificant source
    (f) Insignificant sources--Type I
    (g) Insignificant sources--Type II
    (h) Major source
    (i) Minor source
    (j) Modification
    (k) Pollution prevention
    (l) Significant modification
    (m) Transition period
    1104.2 Applicability
    1104.3 General conditions for considering applications
    1104.4 Holding and transfer of permit
    1104.5(a) Cancellation of Air Pollution Control Permit
    1104.6 Air Pollution Control Permit Application
    1104.7 Duty to Supplement or Correct Permit Applications
    1104.8 Compliance Plan
    1104.9 Compliance Certification of Air Pollution Emission Sources
    1104.10 Transition Period and Deadlines to Submit First
Applications
    1104.11 Permit Term

    1104.12 Permit Content
    1104.13 Inspections
    1104.14 Federally-Enforceable Permit Terms and Conditions
    1104.15 Transmission of Information to USEPA
    1104.16 USEPA Oversight
    1104.17 Emergency Provision
    1104.18 Permit Termination, Suspension, Reopening, and Amendment
    1104.19 Public Participation
    1104.20 Administrative Permit Amendment
    1104.21 General Fee Provisions
    1104.22 Air Pollution Control Special Fund
    1104.23 Application Fees for Air Pollution Emission Sources
    1104.24 Annual Fees for Air Pollution Emission Sources
    1104.25 Penalties and Remedies
    1106 Standards of Performance for Air Pollution Emission Sources
    (2) SIP Revision. Guam shall adopt, pursuant to required
procedures, and submit to EPA a revision to Guam's SIP that provides
that a person shall not violate a permit condition or term in an
operating permit that has been issued under an EPA approved alternate
operating permit program adopted by Guam pursuant the exemption
authorized in this Sec.  69.13.

[FR Doc. 06-1740 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 250)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69320-69322]
[DOCID:fr31de09-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0668; FRL-8796-6]
RIN 2070-AB27

Proposed Revocation of Significant New Use Rule on a Certain
Chemical Substance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to revoke a significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for one chemical substance. For the chemical substance covered
by premanufacture notice (PMN) P-95-1772, EPA issued a non-5(e) SNUR
(i.e. SNUR on a substance that is not subject to a TSCA section 5(e)
consent order) designating certain activities as significant new uses
based on the concern criteria in 40 CFR 721.170(b). EPA has received
and reviewed new information and test data for the chemical substance
and proposes to revoke the SNUR pursuant to 40 CFR 721.185.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0668, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0668. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0668. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Tracey Klosterman, Chemical
Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
import, process, or use the chemical substance contained in this
proposed revocation. Potentially affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject
chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of January 22, 1998 (63 FR 3393) (FRL-5720-
3), EPA promulgated a SNUR for the chemical substance covered by PMN P-
95-1772. This non-5(e) SNUR designated certain activities as
significant new uses based on the concern criteria identified in Sec.
721.170(b)(4)(ii). EPA has received and reviewed test data for the
chemical substance, and, based on that test data, EPA now proposes to
revoke the SNUR pursuant to Sec.  721.185. In this unit, EPA provides a
brief description of this chemical substance, including the PMN number,
chemical name (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI),
CAS number (if assigned and not claimed as CBI), the Federal Register
publication date and reference, the docket number, the basis for
revoking the SNUR under Sec.  721.185, and the CFR citation of the
SNUR.
PMN Number P-95-1772
Chemical name: Polyalkyl phosphate (generic).
CAS number: Not available.
Federal Register publication date and reference: January 22, 1998 (63
FR 3393).
Docket number: OPPTS-50628.
Basis for revocation of SNUR: EPA issued a SNUR for this substance
based on the concern criteria at Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(ii). Subsequently,
the PMN submitter petitioned EPA to revoke the SNUR based on the
results of submitted biodegradation testing. The biodegradation testing
demonstrated that the substance is readily biodegradable, mitigating
concerns for chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. Therefore, EPA no
longer finds that releases to water resulting in stream concentrations
that exceed 1 parts per billion (ppb) may cause significant adverse
environmental effects. Based on available information, the substance no
longer meets the concern criteria at Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(ii).
Therefore, EPA proposes that the SNUR for this chemical substance be
revoked pursuant to Sec.  721.185(a)(4).
CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5995.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once
EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new
use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant
new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture,
import, or process the chemical substance for that use. The mechanism
for reporting under this requirement is established under Sec.  721.5.
    Upon conclusion of the review for P-95-1772, based on the concern
criteria

in Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(ii) as discussed in Unit II.A., EPA determined
that there was a concern for potential environmental effects of the
substance and promulgated a non-5(e) SNUR for this chemical substance.
    Under Sec.  721.185, EPA may at any time revoke a SNUR for a
chemical substance which has been added to subpart E of 40 CFR part 721
if EPA makes one of the determinations set forth in Sec.  721.185(a)(1)
through (a)(6). Revocation may occur on EPA's initiative or in response
to a written request. Under Sec.  721.185(b)(3), if EPA concludes that
a SNUR should be revoked, the Agency will propose the changes in the
Federal Register, briefly describe the grounds for the action, and
provide interested parties an opportunity to comment.
    EPA has determined that the criteria set forth in Sec.
721.185(a)(4) have been satisfied for the chemical substance;
therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the SNUR provisions for this
chemical substance. When this revocation becomes final, EPA will no
longer require notice of intent to manufacture, import, or process this
substance for any significant new uses. In addition, export
notification requirements under section 12(b) of TSCA triggered by this
SNUR will no longer be required.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule would revoke or eliminate an existing regulatory
requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As
such, the Agency has determined that this proposed SNUR revocation
would not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of regulatory actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This
proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Since this proposed rule eliminates a reporting requirement, the
Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this SNUR revocation
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    For the same reasons, this action does not require any action under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). This proposed rule has neither Federalism implications, because
it would not have substantial direct effects on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), nor tribal implications, because it
would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes,
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and it does not address environmental health or safety risks
disproportionately affecting children. It is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because this action is not expected to affect energy supply,
distribution, or use. Because this action does not involve any
technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action. This action does
not involve special considerations of environmental justice related
issues as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 22, 2009.
Barbara A. Cunningham,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as
follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

Sec.  721.5995  [Removed]

    2. By removing Sec.  721.5995.

[FR Doc. E9-30990 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35400-35402]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14442]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72396; File No. SR-FICC-2014-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Remove References to New York Portfolio Clearing, LLC in the Rules of
the Government Securities Division and in the Cross-Margining Agreement
With the Chicago Mercantile Exchange

June 16, 2014.
    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 June 9, 2014, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4) thereunder \4\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD Rules'') to remove
references to New York Portfolio Clearing, LLC (``NYPC'') and the
cross-margining arrangement between NYPC and FICC (the ``NYPC
Arrangement'') from the GSD Rules, as the NYPC Arrangement is no longer
in effect.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    (i) The purpose of this filing is to remove references to NYPC and
the NYPC Arrangement from the GSD Rules, as the NYPC Arrangement is no
longer in effect.
Background
    On February 28, 2011, the Commission approved FICC's proposed rule
change SR-FICC-2010-09 in order to allow FICC to offer cross-margining
of certain cash positions cleared at GSD with certain interest rate
futures positions cleared at NYPC and allow margin requirements with
respect to such eligible cash and futures positions to be calculated as
a single portfolio (the ``NYPC Order'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63986 (Feb. 28,
2011), 76 FR 12144 (Mar. 4, 2011) (SR-FICC-2010-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYPC is jointly owned by NYSE Euronext (``NYSE'') and The
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''), the parent company
of FICC. On November 13, 2013, Intercontinental Exchange Group
(``ICE'') completed its acquisition of NYSE.\6\ On November 29, 2013,
ICE and DTCC announced plans to transition the clearing of interest
rate futures contracts listed on NYSE Liffe U.S. to ICE Clear Europe
and to wind down NYPC's operations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IntercontinentalExchange. (2013).
``IntercontinentalExchange Completes Acquisition of NYSE Euronext''
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nyse.com/press/1385726419589.html.
    \7\ See NYSE. (2013). ``IntercontinentalExchange Group and DTCC
Announce Plans for Interest Rate Futures Listed on NYSE Liffe U.S.''
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nyse.com/press/1385726419589.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now that the migration of open interest in NYSE Liffe U.S. interest
rate futures contracts from NYPC to ICE Clear Europe has been
completed, the cross-margining agreement between FICC and NYPC (the
``NYPC Agreement'') will be terminated and all references to NYPC and
the NYPC Arrangement will be removed from the GSD Rules to reflect this
change. In addition, FICC will no longer be providing the Commission
with the reports enumerated in Section IV.D of the NYPC Order in light
of the termination of the NYPC Arrangement.
Removal of References to NYPC and the NYPC Arrangement
    FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rules as follows:
    In Rule 1--``Definitions'', the following definitions have been
revised or deleted:
    The term ``Cross-Margining Agreement'' is revised to remove the
provision permitting an eligible GSD Member to elect to have its
Required Fund Deposit in respect of Eligible Positions at FICC and its
(or its Permitted Margin Affiliate's, if applicable) margin
requirements in respect of Eligible Positions at an FCO calculated as
if such positions were in a single portfolio, as such provision relates
only to the NYPC Arrangement.
    The term ``FCO'' is revised to remove the reference to NYPC.
    The term ``Margin Portfolio'' is revised to remove the reference to
NYPC Accounts.
    The term ``Market Professional Agreement for Cross-Margining'' is
revised to replace the reference to NYPC with a reference to the
relevant FCO with whom FICC may, in the future, enter into a cross-
margining arrangement for Market Professional customers.
    The term ``NYPC'' is removed.
    The term ``NYPC Account'' is removed.
    The term ``NYPC Market Professional Account'' is removed.
    The term ``NYPC Member'' is removed.

    The term ``NYPC Original Margin'' is removed.
    The term ``NYPC Proprietary Account'' is removed.
    The term ``NYPC-Submitted Trade'' is removed.
    The term ``Permitted Margin Affiliate'' is revised to remove the
provision allowing an affiliate of a GSD Member that is a member of an
FCO, but not itself a GSD Member, to be considered a Permitted Margin
Affiliate for purposing of margining positions between FICC and the FCO
as if such positions were in a single portfolio, as such provision
relates only to the NYPC Arrangement.
    The term ``VaR Charge'' is revised to remove language relating to
any positions in a GSD Member's NYPC Accounts being grouped into a
Margin Portfolio.
    In Rule 3--``Ongoing Membership Requirements'', the reference to
NYPC acting as a designated Locked-In Trade Source is removed from
Section 11 and related conforming changes to the numbering of Section
11 are made.
    In Rule 4--``Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation'', Sections 1a and
1b are revised to remove language related to designated NYPC Accounts
being considered part of a GSD Member's Margin Portfolio. Sections 2, 3
and 3b are revised to remove language related to NYPC Original Margin
in connection with provisions pertaining to the required form of a GSD
Member's Required Fund Deposit. The provision of Section 7(a)
pertaining to loss allocation if a Margin Portfolio of a Defaulting
Member contains NYPC Accounts is removed and related conforming changes
to the numbering of Section 7(a) are made.
    In Rule 6C--``Locked-In Comparison'', Sections 2, 2a, 4 and 8 are
revised to remove references to NYPC acting as a designated Locked-In
Trade Source, as well as references to NYPC-Submitted Trades.
    In Rule 13--``Funds-Only Settlement'', Section 5a pertaining to
Funds-Only Settlement Bank arrangements for GSD Members that are also
NYPC Members or that have Permitted Margin Affiliates that are NYPC
Members is removed.
    In Rule 22--``Insolvency of a Member'', the reference in Section
2(d) to a Permitted Margin Affiliate defaulting on its obligations to
an FCO with which FICC has a Cross-Margining Agreement is removed, as
such provision of the Permitted Margin Affiliate definition relates
only to the NYPC Arrangement as described above. Similarly, the
reference in Section 2(e) to a Cross-Margining Affiliate defaulting on
its obligations to FICC is removed.
    In Rule 22A--``Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act'',
language in Section 2(b) is removed that relates to close-out
procedures for a GSD Member that has NYPC Accounts included within a
Margin Portfolio.
    In Rule 43--``Cross-Margining Arrangements'', the first paragraph
of Section 1 is revised to remove the provision permitting an eligible
GSD Member to elect to have its Required Fund Deposit in respect of
Eligible Positions at FICC and its (or its Permitted Margin
Affiliate's, if applicable) margin requirements in respect of Eligible
Positions at an FCO calculated as if such positions were in a single
portfolio, as such provision relates only to the NYPC Arrangement. The
third paragraph of Section 1 is removed, as it relates to the right of
first offset between NYPC and FICC vis a vis Cross-Margining
Arrangements with other FCOs. In Section 2(b), the provision permitting
an affiliate of an eligible GSD Member to become a Permitted Margin
Affiliate for purposes of participating in a Cross-Margining
Arrangement is removed, as such language relates only to the NYPC
Arrangement. Similarly, in Section 4, the provision permitting, in
certain circumstances, an eligible GSD Member that is a Cross-Margining
Participant in a Cross-Margining Arrangement between FICC and one or
more FCOs to be treated as insolvent by FICC in the event that its
Permitted Margin Affiliate is deemed insolvent by an FCO is removed, as
such language relates only to the NYPC Arrangement.
    In the ``Schedule of Timeframes'', references to computation of
NYPC margin and reports related to NYPC margin requirements are
removed.
    In the ``Designated Locked-In Trade Sources'' schedule, NYPC is
removed as a designated Locked-In Trade Source.
    In the ``Cross-Margining Agreements'' schedule, the NYPC Agreement
is removed.
Removal of the NYPC Agreement
    FICC is proposing to remove the NYPC Agreement from the GSD Rules,
as the NYPC Agreement is no longer in effect.
Amendment of CME Agreement
    Removal of the references to NYPC and the NYPC Arrangement from the
GSD Rules will necessitate certain amendments to the agreement between
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') and FICC (the ``CME
Agreement'') regarding the cross-margining arrangement currently
conducted between CME and FICC (the ``CME Arrangement''). Specifically,
the CME Agreement will be amended to delete references to the NYPC
Arrangement and the priority it held over the CME Arrangement when
determining residual FICC positions that are available for cross-
margining with the CME, as well as the right of first offset between
NYPC and FICC when calculating and presenting liquidation results under
the CME Agreement. The CME Agreement showing the proposed changes is
attached hereto as part of Exhibit 5.
    (ii) The proposed rule is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \8\
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder because it will make certain
rule corrections that will support the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions in that such rule corrections
will remove references in the GSD Rules to a cross-margining
arrangement that is no longer in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition because it relates to the
removal of references in the GSD Rules to a cross-margining arrangement
that is no longer in effect.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

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

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) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-FICC-2014-04 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-FICC-2014-04. 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 FICC. 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-FICC-2014-04 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14442 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P