[Federal Register: February 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9052-9054]
[DOCID:fr28fe07-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55330; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Obvious Errors in Option Transactions

February 21, 2007.
    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 January 18, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
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 substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal 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)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 6.87, which contains
procedures for trade nullification and price adjustments on obvious
errors in option transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nysearca.com.

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. NYSE Arca has substantially prepared summaries, set
forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.87 in order to offer
an extra level of protection for Customers \5\ who are a party to a
transaction involving an obvious error during the opening. Under
existing rules, OTP Holders that have executed a trade on behalf of a
Customer have a twenty (20) minute period from the time of execution to
notify the Exchange and request a review of the trade for either
nullification or price adjustment. The current twenty minute window,
for nullification purposes, would not be changed by this proposal.
However, under the proposed rule change, OTP Holders representing
Customers would now have an extended period of time to request an
obvious error review for adjustment purposes. OTP Holders would now be
able to make a request to Trading Officials \6\ to make price
adjustments on transactions that occur on the opening, until 4:30 p.m.
(ET) on the day that the transaction occurs. The intention of this
filing is to protect Customers who fail to discover an obvious error
within twenty minutes of execution from being forced to accept an
execution that results from an obvious error during the opening
auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Customer'' as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 6.1(b)(29) and
NYSEArca 6.1A(a)(4) shall mean a non-broker dealer.
    \6\ ``Trading Official'' as defined in NYSE Arca Rule
6.1(b)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An obvious pricing error is deemed to have occurred when the
execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the
theoretical price for the series by an amount equal to at least the
amount shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Minimum
                     Theoretical price                          amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below $2...................................................        $0.25
$2 to $5...................................................         0.40
Above $5 to $10............................................         0.50
Above $10 to $20...........................................         0.80
Above $20..................................................         1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The theoretical price of an option is, for series that are traded
on at least one other exchange, the last bid price with respect to an
erroneous sell transaction and the last offer price with respect to an
erroneous buy transaction, just prior to the trade, disseminated by the
competing options exchange that has the most liquidity in the option
class over the previous two calendar months. If there are no quotes for
comparison, the theoretical price shall be determined by designated
Trading Officials.
    For transactions during the opening auction between a Customer and
a Market Maker,\7\ after the twenty minute notification period has
elapsed since the trade containing the obvious error occurred but
before 4:30 p.m. (ET) on the same trading day, the OTP Holder, on
behalf of its Customer, could request an obvious error review for
possible adjustment to the theoretical price. In determining the
theoretical price of an option series, the Trading Official would look
to the away competing exchange with the most liquidity in the option
class over the two preceding months. The transaction would be adjusted
to the competing exchanges' disseminated theoretical price at the time
the trade occurred. With respect to sell transactions the last bid
price, just prior to the trade, would be used. With respect to buy
transactions the last offer price, just prior to the trade would be
used.\8\ Price adjustments would be made up to the equivalent number of
contracts that the competing exchange was listing as its disseminated
size at the time the trade occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Market Maker'' as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 6.32 or 6.32A.
    \8\ The Exchange believes that the proposed basis for
determining the theoretical price for transactions occurring during
the opening does not implicate NYSE Arca users' trade through
liability, because the Linkage Plan provides for an exception to
trade through liability for transactions occurring on the opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transactions during the opening auction between a Customer and
a non-Market Maker,\9\ after the twenty minute notification period has
elapsed but before 4:30 p.m. (ET) on the same trading day, an OTP
Holder, on behalf of its Customer, could request an obvious error
review. In determining how to adjust the transaction to the theoretical
price, the Trading Official would look to the away competing exchange
with the most liquidity in the option class over the two preceding
months. The transaction would be adjusted to the competing exchanges'
disseminated theoretical price at the time the trade occurred. With
respect to sell transactions the last bid price, just prior to the
trade, would be used. With respect to buy transactions the last offer
price, just prior to the trade would be used.\10\ Price adjustments
would be made up to the equivalent number of contracts that the
competing exchange was listing as its disseminated size at the time the
trade occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the purpose of this rule ``non-Market Maker'' could
include (but is not limited to) an away specialist, an off-floor
firm or another Customer.
    \10\ See, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule changes proposed in this filing are similar to those
presented by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') in SR-CBOE-
2005-63.\11\ In that filing, the CBOE amended CBOE Rule 6.25 to include
substantially similar provisions that NYSE Arca is presenting at this
time. The Exchange notes that the Commission did receive one comment
letter from Citadel Investment Group L.L.C. (the ``Citadel

Letter'') regarding the CBOE proposal.\12\ In its approval notice, the
Commission stated that ``the Citadel Letter does not raise any issues
that would preclude approval of the proposed rule change.'' NYSE Arca
feels that any similar issues contained in the Citadel Letter that may
be raised in regard to proposed rule changes contained in this filing
would not preclude approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54004 (June 16,
2006), 71 FR 36139 (June 23, 2006) (approval order for SR-CBOE-2005-
63).
    \12\ See letter dated May 17, 2006 to Mr. Jonathan Katz,
Secretary, Commission, from Mr. Matthew Hinerfeld, Deputy General
Counsel, Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C. on behalf of Citadel
Derivatives Group LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest), the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and subparagraph (f)(6)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE Arca. 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-NYSEArca-2007-06 and should be submitted on or before
March 21, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3494 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38584-38586]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0388]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Diego Symphony Summer POPS Fireworks 2013
Season, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay in support of the San Diego Symphony Summer
POPS Fireworks 2013 season. This safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating
vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on June 27, 2013, to 10 p.m.
on September 1, 2013. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
on the following evenings: June 27 through June 29, July 5, 6, 12, 13,
19, 20, 26, and 27, August 2, 3, 9 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, and
September 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0388]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Deborah Metzger, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive necessary information
from the event sponsor in time to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. The event is scheduled to take place, and as such,
immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels,
spectators, participants, and others in the vicinity of the marine
event on the dates and times this rule will be in effect.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying
the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since
immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones
(33 U.S.C sections 1221 et seq.).
    Fireworks America is sponsoring the San Diego Symphony Summer POPS,
which will include a fireworks presentation from a barge in San Diego
Bay. The fireworks display is scheduled to occur between 9 p.m. on June
27, 2013, to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This rule will be enforced
from 9 p.m. on June 27, 2013 to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This rule
will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following evenings: June
27 through June 29, July 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27, August 2, 3,
9 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, and September 1, 2013. This safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators,
participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 9 p.m. on June 27, 2013, to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This
rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. on June 27, 2013, to 10 p.m. on
September 1, 2013. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
the following evenings; June 27 through June 29, July 5, 6, 12, 13, 19,
20, 26, and 27, August 2, 3, 9 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, and
September 1, 2013. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 400 feet of the fireworks barge, located in approximate position
32[deg]42'16'' N, 117[deg]09'59'' W. The safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. When this safety zone is being
enforced, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the size, location and timing of the safety zone. The safety
zone will be enforced for a relatively short time, 60 minutes, late at
night when vessel traffic is low. It impacts a very small area of San
Diego Bay, a circle about 800 feet in diameter. Commercial vessels will
not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels can transit
around the safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of San Diego Bay between 9 p.m. on June 27, 2013
to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m.
on June 27, 2013 to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This rule will be
enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following evenings: June 27
through June 29, July 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27, August 2, 3, 9
10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, and September 1, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
safety zone will only be in effect for one hour and 10 minutes late in
the evening when vessel traffic is low. It impacts a very small area of
San Diego Bay, a circle about 800 feet in diameter. Vessel traffic can
transit safely around the safety zone.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-568 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-568  Safety Zone; San Diego Symphony Summer POPS
Fireworks 2013 Season, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will include the area within 600 feet
of the fireworks barge in approximate position 32[deg]42'16'' N,
117[deg]09'59'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 9 p.m. on
June 27, 2013 to 10 p.m. on September 1, 2013. This rule will be
enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following evenings: June 27
through June 29, July 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, and 27, August 2, 3, 9,
10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, and September 1, 2013.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
local, state, or federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Command Center. The Command Center may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: June 13, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013-15496 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10613-10616]
[DOCID:fr09mr07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0041; FRL-8284-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. EPA is
approving a revision to the Missouri rule entitled ``Submission of
Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information.'' This revision
will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved
rules.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 8, 2007, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 2007.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0041, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-0041. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is the Part 70 operating permits program?
What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits
program?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and Part 70
revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?

What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.

What is the part 70 Operating Permits Program?

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating
permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing
this program, the states are to require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is
to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that
consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-
enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable
requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public,
and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA
requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is
determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example,
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size,
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit
100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM10;
those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons
per year or more of a combination of HAPs.
    Revision to the state and local agencies operating permits program
are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval.

What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must
formally adopt regulations consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice,
public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a
state-authorized rulemaking body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating
permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional
public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state
submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed
prior to any final Federal action by us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are
maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled
``Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.''

What is being addressed in this document?

    Missouri, in its letter of December 11, 2006, requested that EPA
approve a revision to the SIP and Operating Permits Program to include
revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emission Data,
Emission Fees, and Process Information''. This rule deals with
submittal of emissions information, emission fees, and public
availability of emissions data. It provides procedures for collection,
recording, and submittal of emissions data and process information on
state-supplied Emission Inventory Questionnaire and Emission Statement
forms so that the state can calculate emissions for the purpose of
state air resource planning.
    By state statute and to meet EPA requirements under the Title V
program, the emission fees are set annually to fund the reasonable cost
of administering the program. The Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) continually evaluates the Operating Permits Program
financial situation. Section (3)(D)1. established the emissions fee of
$34.50 per ton of regulated air pollutant starting for calendar year
2005 which remains the fee for calendar year 2006. This revision merely
changes the text from calendar year 2005 to 2006.
    Subsection (3)(D)2.E. was revised to change the due date for
emission fees from the previous year to be due on June 1 instead of
April 1, for all Standard Industrial Classifications.
    Subsection (3)(D)2.F. was revised to change the due date for
Emission Inventory Questionnaire forms from April 1 to June 1 for all
Standard Industrial Classifications.
    The rule revisions do not change the stringency of the SIP or Title
V program and the revisions otherwise meet the EPA requirements for
both programs.

Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revision and Part 70
revision been met?

    The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102
and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA including section
110 and 40 CFR 51.211, relating to submission of emissions data.
    Finally, the submittal met the substantive requirements of Title V
of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70, including the
requirement in 40 CFR 70.9 relating to emission fees.

What action is EPA taking?

    We are approving revisions to the Missouri SIP and incorporating
the revised rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emissions Data,
Emission Fees, and Process Information.''
    We are also approving sections (3)(D)1, and (3)(D)2.E., and
(3)(D)2.F. of this rule as program revisions to the state's Part 70
Operating Permits Program.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial, and make regulatory revisions required by state
statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if
that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 CAA.
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 approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP and Title V permit submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus
be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2007. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
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 AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising
the entry for ``10-6.110'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
       Missouri citation                  Title           effective date   EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.110......................  Submission of Emission          12/30/06  3/9/07 [insert FR   Section (3)(D),
                                 Data, Emission Fees,                      page number where   Emissions Fees,
                                 and Process Information.                  the document        has not been
                                                                           begins].            approved as part
                                                                                of the SIP.

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

* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

Appendix A--[Amended]

0
4. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (u) under
Missouri to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *
    (u) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110, ``Submission of Emission
Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information'' on December 11, 2006;
approval of sections (3)(D)1., (3)(D)2.E., and (3)(D)2.F. effective
May 8, 2007.
* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E7-4176 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80782-80785]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27433]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10015-93-OECA]

Notice of Availability of EPA Tampering Policy and Request for
Information Regarding 1986 Catalyst Policy

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has issued EPA Tampering Policy:
The EPA Enforcement Policy on Vehicle and Engine Tampering and
Aftermarket Defeat Devices under the Clean Air Act. This Policy states
how the EPA intends to handle certain potential civil violations of the
Clean Air Act's prohibitions on tampering with vehicle and engine
emissions controls as well as the manufacturing, selling, offering to
sell, and installation of parts and components that defeat emissions
controls. The EPA Tampering Policy creates no obligations on regulated
parties, and it is not a rule. Further, it is principally a restatement
of currently applicable enforcement discretion policies. The EPA
Tampering Policy supersedes and replaces former statements of
enforcement policy, as specified in the Policy itself. The EPA
Tampering Policy neither supersedes nor replaces a 1986 enforcement
policy that is specific to replacement catalytic converters for light-
duty gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond their emissions warranty.
Rather, with this Federal Register document, the EPA requests
information to help the agency make a future decision on whether and
how to update or withdraw the 1986 catalyst policy. EPA does not
anticipate any measurable costs to be incurred by the affected entities
associated with the Tampering Policy or the request for information
regarding the 1986 catalyst policy.

DATES: The EPA requests information relevant to the agency's ongoing
evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy and potential future enforcement
policy regarding replacement catalytic converters for light-duty
gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond their emissions warranty.
Comments must be received by February 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified in the subject line by
``Catalyst Policy,'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Belser, Air Enforcement Division,
Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Mail Code 2242A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of EPA Tampering Policy

    Manufacturers employ various systems, technologies, and designs to
control emissions of air pollution from their vehicles, engines, and
equipment. They do so to comply with Part A of Title II of the Clean
Air Act (Act or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7521-7554. These emissions controls
reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants and help prevent respiratory
disease, premature death, and environmental harm. The Act prohibits
tampering with these emissions controls, and also prohibits making,
selling, and installing products that defeat emissions controls. CAA
Sec.  203(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Violations of these prohibitions
can severely impact air quality and prevent a level playing field in
the aftermarket parts industry and among those who service vehicles and
engines.
    The EPA's enforcement and compliance efforts to stop tampering and
aftermarket defeat devices are the subject of an ongoing National
Compliance Initiative. The agency has stepped up its enforcement in
this area in response to the widespread removal of vehicle emissions
controls that are essential for achieving and maintaining National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Agency enforcement personnel are holding
accountable those who manufacture and sell aftermarket defeat devices,
those who tamper with commercial fleets of vehicles, and those service
shops that routinely delete emissions control equipment. Such conduct
is illegal, and undercuts local, state, and federal efforts to improve
air quality.

    To complement this enforcement effort, the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has updated the agency's
enforcement policy concerning potential violations of the Act's
prohibitions on tampering and aftermarket defeat devices. The EPA
Tampering Policy: The EPA Enforcement Policy on Vehicle and Engine
Tampering and Aftermarket Defeat Devices under the Clean Air Act (EPA
Tampering Policy, or Policy) will foster consistency in how EPA
enforcement personnel approach this work. This Policy will also provide
compliance assistance, for example, by describing measures that
aftermarket parts companies, service technicians, and others may take
to help prevent violations. This update is helpful in part because
prior enforcement policies pre-date the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act that added the defeat device prohibition alongside the
tampering prohibition and expanded the jurisdiction of the Act to
include nonroad vehicles and engines. CAA Sec. Sec.  203(a)(3)(B) and
213, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B) and 7547. Also, this Policy speaks in
terms of today's technology, which has advanced considerably since the
time of EPA's prior enforcement policies.
    The EPA Tampering Policy is a statement of EPA enforcement policy--
it is not a regulation--and so it establishes no performance standards,
test methods, reporting requirements, or other features more
characteristic of a regulatory certification program. This Policy does
not purport to address every possible kind of conduct that may be
subject to the Act's prohibitions.
    This Policy consolidates and restates the principles of the
existing enforcement policies (as listed in the Policy's Introduction).
Most notably, in this Policy the EPA reaffirms its longstanding
practice of using enforcement discretion not to pursue conduct that
could potentially constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act provided
the person performing that conduct has a documented, reasonable basis
to conclude that the conduct does not adversely affect emissions. The
Policy includes six circumstances that help to illustrate what the EPA
generally views to be a reasonable basis deserving of enforcement
discretion, paraphrased here:

 Reasonable Basis A: Identical to the EPA-certified
configuration
     Reasonable Basis B: Replacement after-treatment system
that is as effective as the vehicle's or engine's original system and
is durable enough to last for a period of time equal to at least half
of the vehicle's or engine's useful life as defined in EPA regulations
 Reasonable Basis C: Addition of a new after-treatment system
to decrease emissions
 Reasonable Basis D: Emissions testing demonstrates no adverse
effect on emissions
 Reasonable Basis E: Aftermarket part certified or approved by
EPA
 Reasonable Basis F: Aftermarket part exempted by the
California Air Resources Board
    The EPA Tampering Policy may be viewed at the following website:
Air Enforcement Policy, Guidance and Publications, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air-enforcement-policy-guidance-and-publications#Mobile.

II. Request for Information Relevant to the 1986 Catalyst Policy

    By this publication and as explained below, the EPA requests
information relevant to the agency's ongoing evaluation of a 1986 EPA
enforcement policy that specifically addresses the manufacture, sale,
offering for sale, and installation of replacement catalytic converters
(or catalysts) for light-duty gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond
their emissions warranty. Sale and Use of Aftermarket Catalytic
Converters, 51 FR 28114 and 51 FR 28132 (Aug. 5, 1986) (1986 catalyst
policy), available at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air-enforcement-policy-guidance-and-publications#Mobile.

A. Background

    A catalyst is a device installed in the exhaust system of a
vehicle. It treats and eliminates harmful pollution produced in the
vehicle's engine, and is a type of device commonly referred to as an
``after-treatment system.'' Automakers install catalysts in their new
vehicles to meet tailpipe emissions standards (commonly referred to as
``OEM catalysts'', which stands for original equipment manufacturer).
The manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and installation of an OEM
catalyst, or an identical catalyst, would not be a violation of the
Act. However, manufacture, sale, offering for sale, and installation of
a less effective catalyst may be a violation and, in the absence of any
applicable EPA enforcement policy, subject to investigation and
potential enforcement action.
    The EPA issued the 1986 catalyst policy in response to various
challenges associated with the early generations of vehicles equipped
with catalytic converters. In the 1986 catalyst policy, the EPA stated
that the agency would generally take no enforcement action for the
manufacture, sale, or installation of a replacement catalyst even if
that catalyst was less effective than the OEM catalyst so long as it
met certain criteria. The 1986 catalyst policy included performance
criteria for replacement catalysts (e.g., control emissions of NOx with
30% effectiveness for at least 25,000 miles). The criteria reflected
the anticipated division between those situations where the EPA would
likely investigate further and those situations where the EPA would
likely take no further action. Replacement catalysts that met the
criteria in the 1986 catalyst policy were with few exceptions less
effective than the catalysts that automakers installed in their new
vehicles in the 1980s. Catalyst technology has advanced markedly since
1986, and now OEM catalysts are far more effective and durable than in
the 1980s.

B. Specific Policy Considerations

    The EPA broadly requests information that may inform the agency's
ongoing evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy and potential future
enforcement policy regarding replacement catalytic converters for
light-duty gasoline motor vehicles that are beyond their emissions
warranty. This includes information and data on: potential costs and
air quality benefits of withdrawing or changing the 1986 catalyst
policy; the current state of the market of replacement catalysts,
including the cost, volume of sales, frequency of installation, the age
and mileage of vehicles on which replacement catalysts are installed;
to what extent catalyst replacement is needed due to failure of the
original catalyst, or other reason including theft; and the
effectiveness of replacement catalysts at treating air pollution,
including whether and to what extent replacement catalysts in the
current market conform to the catalysts described in the 1986 catalyst
policy.
    Further, the EPA specifically requests information relevant to the
five following policy considerations.
    First, the EPA requests information on whether the agency has
accomplished the goals of the 1986 catalyst policy. As detailed in that
policy, the stated goals included: Supporting fledgling state and local
vehicle inspection programs by encouraging them to require their
citizens to replace catalysts that were missing, lead poisoned, or
otherwise ineffective; and encouraging the development of inexpensive,
multiple-application catalysts, and to confirm the effectiveness of
these products.
    Second, the EPA requests information on whether EPA should
establish a consistent enforcement policy for all types replacement
after-treatment

systems for vehicles and engines. After-treatment systems are devices
that treat exhaust from the engine in order to reduce the amount of
pollution emitted into the ambient air. Vehicle and engine
manufacturers employ after-treatment systems in order to comply with
EPA emissions standards for a wide range of types of vehicles and
engines, including gasoline and diesel products for the on-road and
nonroad sectors. Common after-treatment systems include catalytic
converters, diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction
systems, and diesel oxidation catalysts. These systems vary in their
applications and technologies, but the question of whether such parts
are legal is the same in all cases: do they violate the prohibitions on
tampering and aftermarket defeat devices in section 203(a)(3) of the
Clean Air Act?
    Note that the EPA Tampering Policy includes provisions that
generally address replacement after-treatment systems. These provisions
are primarily stated in ``Reasonable Basis B'' in the EPA Tampering
Policy (other pertinent provisions are stated in Reasonable Bases A and
F). In the agency's ongoing evaluation of the 1986 catalyst policy, the
agency is considering whether to withdraw the 1986 catalyst policy and
instead apply these general provisions from the Tampering Policy to
replacement catalysts for light-duty gasoline motor vehicles that are
beyond their emissions warranty. As applied, Reasonable Basis B would
say that the EPA would typically find there is a reasonable basis where
a catalyst is as effective as the vehicle's original catalyst (which,
for example, controls emissions of NOx with more than 90% effectiveness
in recent model year vehicles) and will remain as effective for at
least half of the vehicle's ``useful life'' as defined in EPA
regulations (e.g., 60,000 miles for many vehicles on the road whose
useful life in the regulations is 120,000 miles).
    Third, the EPA requests information on whether and how the 1986
catalyst policy affects the market for aftermarket catalysts. Over
time, that market has seen demand for increasingly effective catalysts.
This follows the same basic progression by vehicle manufacturers which
have installed increasingly effective catalysts in their new motor
vehicles in order to comply with increasingly stringent tailpipe
emissions standards. Manufacturers have also used increasingly advanced
on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems to monitor the performance of a
vehicle's emissions-related components and provide owners with an early
warning of malfunctions through the dashboard ``check engine'' light
(also known as a Malfunction Indicator Light). Catalysts that control
emissions significantly less effectively than OEM catalysts may fail
entirely at keeping the ``check engine'' light off, or may keep the
light off for only a short period of time. Note that whether or for how
long a replacement catalyst successfully keeps the ``check engine''
light does not determine whether that catalyst is compliant, but state
and local vehicle inspection and maintenance programs require the light
be off in order for the vehicle to qualify for registration. Over time,
aftermarket catalyst manufacturers have supplied increasingly effective
catalysts to help their customers who want to keep the ``check engine''
light off and to ensure protection of air quality. In meeting this
demand, aftermarket catalyst manufacturers commonly make their
catalysts more effective than the performance criteria set forth in the
1986 catalyst policy and these more effective catalysts may last
longer.
    Another market condition relates to the fact that the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) requires all aftermarket catalysts sold in
California to control air pollution with an effectiveness that is
similar to the vehicle's OEM catalyst. Other states including New York
and Maine have adopted California's catalyst requirements, at least for
those motor vehicles that were originally certified to meet
California's emissions standards (which sometimes vary from federal
emissions standards depending on the vehicle application). This has
created a kind of patchwork where there are significant differences
among states in the effectiveness of catalysts for some vehicle
applications. The EPA requests information on whether this creates
confusion among vehicle owners or challenges for companies that
manufacture and supply catalysts, and if so, how. The EPA further
requests information on whether and how these conditions might change
if the EPA were to withdraw the 1986 catalyst policy and instead employ
the EPA Tampering Policy for replacement catalytic converters for
gasoline light-duty motor vehicles that are beyond their emissions
warranty.
    Fourth, the EPA requests information on the effect of EPA
enforcement policy on catalyst costs. This includes information on the
effect on the cost of catalysts of the 1986 catalyst policy. This also
includes information on the effect on the cost of catalysts that may
result if the EPA instead applies the EPA Tampering Policy to
replacement catalytic converters for gasoline light-duty motor vehicles
that are beyond their emissions warranty. Such information may include
price to the ultimate purchaser of catalysts, the frequency of the need
for catalyst replacement for the same vehicle, cost considerations for
distributors and retailers, and cost considerations for catalyst
manufacturers, as well as any non-confidential information on sales
volume. More effective catalysts cost more than less effective
catalysts because they are manufactured with better materials, better
design, and higher amounts of the expensive precious metals that are
needed to reduce air pollution. Like many aftermarket automotive parts,
catalyst costs vary widely and depend on the catalyst manufacturer,
distributor, retailer, and the application (i.e., make, model, and year
of the light-duty motor vehicle that needs the catalyst). OEM catalysts
are generally the most expensive option for any given application.
    Finally, the EPA requests information regarding an appropriate
timeline for an orderly transition to a new enforcement policy in the
event the EPA replaces the 1986 catalyst policy. The EPA acknowledges
that catalyst manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and installers
may require time to transition away from catalysts subject to the 1986
catalyst policy. The EPA requests information on what changes may be
required for participants in this industry. The EPA specifically
requests information regarding an appropriate timeline, or timelines,
for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to transition in the
event that the EPA withdraws the 1986 catalyst policy and instead
applies the EPA Tampering Policy (specifically Reasonable Bases A, B,
and F).

C. Submit Information

    Submit comments, identified in the subject line by ``Catalyst
Policy,'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comment must be received by February
12, 2021. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed. The EPA
may publish any comment received. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full

EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2020-27433 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 19223-19225]
[DOCID:fr17ap07-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55617; File No. SR-NASD-2007-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Make Technical Amendments to the Code of Mediation
Procedure

April 11, 2007.
    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 March 16, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD''), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NASD Dispute
Resolution, Inc. (``NASD Dispute Resolution'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NASD Dispute Resolution. NASD has
designated the proposed rule change as concerned solely with the
administration of the self-regulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD Dispute Resolution is proposing to amend the Code of Mediation
Procedure to re-number Rules 10401 through 10410 and update cross
references within the re-numbered rules. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com), at NASD'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, NASD 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. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In 1998, the SEC launched an initiative to encourage issuers and
self-regulatory organizations to use ``plain English'' in disclosure
documents and other materials used by investors. In response, NASD
undertook to rewrite the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (``old
Code'') in ``plain

English.'' This undertaking became the Code Revision Project
(``Project'').
    NASD began to implement the Project in 2003 when it filed with the
SEC a proposed rule change to the old Code to reorganize the rules,
simplify the language, codify current practices, and implement several
substantive changes.\5\ The proposal reorganized NASD's old dispute
resolution rules (Rules 10000 et seq.) into three separate procedural
codes: the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
(``Customer Code''); the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Industry Disputes (``Industry Code''); and the NASD Code of Mediation
Procedure (``Mediation Code'').\6\ The three new Codes would replace
the old Code in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR
36442 (June 23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2003-158) (Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto to
Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Customer Disputes).
    \6\ In 2004, NASD filed separately with the SEC the Industry and
Mediation Codes. See Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005),
70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-011) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4
Thereto to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Industry Disputes); and
Exchange Act Release No. 51855 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36440 (June
23, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-013) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto to Amend NASD
Arbitration Rules for Mediation Proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2005, the SEC approved the Mediation Code.\7\ It
became effective on January 30, 2006.\8\ On January 24, 2007, the SEC
approved the Customer Code and Industry Code.\9\ The Customer and
Industry Codes will become effective on April 16, 2007.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 52705 (Oct. 31, 2005), 70 FR
67525 (Nov. 7, 2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2004-013) (Order Granting
Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto, and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to Amendment No. 3, to Amend NASD Rules for Mediation
Proceedings).
    \8\ The changes were announced in Notice to Members 05-85 (Dec.
2005).
    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 55158 (Jan. 24, 2007), 72 FR
4574 (Jan. 31, 2007) (File Nos. SR-NASD-2003-158 and SR-NASD-2004-
011) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments 1, 2, 3,
and 4 to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Customer Disputes and
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Amendments 5, 6, and 7 Thereto; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change
and Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for
Industry Disputes and Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Amendments 5, 6, and 7 Thereto).
    \10\ The changes were announced in Notice to Members 07-07 (Feb.
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Mediation Code became effective before the Customer and
Industry Codes were approved, NASD implemented the Mediation Code by
replacing the old rules governing mediation (Rules 10400 et seq.) in
the old Code with the rules of the Mediation Code. To minimize
confusion and to assist the users of the dispute resolution forum, NASD
re-numbered the rules of the Mediation Code so that they would be
consistent with the numbering in the old Code, which was still in
effect at the time the Mediation Code became effective. In replacing
the old rules with those of the Mediation Code, NASD changed cross-
references to proposed rules of the Customer and Industry Codes to
applicable rules of the old Code, and removed rule language that was
based on the proposed codes.
    Under this proposed rule change, NASD is proposing to remove Rules
10401 through 10410 of the Mediation Code from the old Code and re-
number them so that the Mediation Code becomes a separate procedural
code, as proposed and approved by the SEC.\11\ NASD also is proposing
to change cross-references to applicable rules of the Customer and
Industry Codes, and re-insert definitions of ``NASD Customer Code'' and
``NASD Industry Code'' in Rules 14100(g) and Rules 14100(h)
respectively, which had been reserved until the new Codes were
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Id. at nn. 7 & 9. The Customer Code will use the Rule
12000 series, the Industry Code will use the Rule 13000 series, and
the Mediation Code will use the Rule 14000 series, all of which are
currently unused under the NASD numbering system. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that NASD's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provision of the Act noted above because it will
provide useful guidance to parties, mediators and staff, and will help
standardize the administration of NASD mediations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD.

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)(iii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder because it
is concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2007-022 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-022. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD.
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 the File Number SR-NASD-2007-
022 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7222 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 134-135]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-149, OMB Control No. 3235-0130]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17Ad-2(c),
(d), and (h)

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

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h),
(17 CFR 240.17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h)), under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.

    Rule 17Ad-2(e),(d), and (h) enumerates the requirements with which
transfer agents must comply to inform the Commission or the appropriate
regulator of a transfer agent's failure to meet the minimum performance
standards set by the Commission rule by filing a notice.
    The Commission receives approximately 3 notices a year pursuant to
Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h). The estimated annual time burden of these
filings on respondents is minimal in view of: (a) The readily available
nature of most of the information required to be included in the notice
(since that information must be compiled and retained pursuant to other
Commission rules); and (b) the summary fashion in which such
information must be presented in the notice (most notices are one page
or less in length). In light of the above, and based on the experience
of the staff regarding the notices, the Commission staff estimates
that, on average, most notices require approximately one-half hour to
prepare. Thus, the Commission staff estimates that the industry-wide
total time burden is approximately 1.5 hours per year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: December 28, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28433 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P