[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11990-11992]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4729]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0027; FRL-9638-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave
Desert Air Quality Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions from glass melting furnaces and biomass
boilers. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0027, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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 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 www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at 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 at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
when they were adopted or amended by the local air agencies and
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
           Local agency                    Rule No.              Rule title           Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD............................  1165.................  Glass Melting                08/12/08        12/23/08
                                                            Furnaces.
YSAQMD............................  2.43.................  Biomass Boilers......        11/10/10        04/05/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for MDAQMD
Rule 1165 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review. On May 6, 2011, EPA
determined that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.43 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of YSAQMD Rule 2.43. There are no
previous versions of Rule 1165 in the SIP, although the MDAQMD adopted
an earlier version of this rule on August 27, 2007, and CARB submitted
it to us on March 7, 2008. While we can act on only the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. PM
contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control
NOX and PM emissions. MDAQMD Rule 1165 limits emissions of
NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and sulfur oxides (SOX) from glass melting furnaces
that produce at least 5 tons of glass per day. YSAQMD Rule 2.43
regulates emissions of NOX and CO from boilers that use
biomass as fuel and that have a heat input rating of greater than 5
MMBtu/hour. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, SIP rules must
implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), including
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), in moderate PM
nonattainment areas, and Best Available Control Measures (BACM),
including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in serious PM
nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The
MDAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area and a PM10
nonattainment area classified as moderate (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule
1165 must implement RACT and RACM. The YSAQMD regulates an ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 2.43 must fulfill
RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the
following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas,
and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional,
and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters,'' CARB,
July 18, 1991.
7. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document-- NOX Emissions
from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,'' US EPA 453/R-
94-022, March 1994.
8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document-- NOX Emissions
from Utility Boilers,'' US EPA 452/R-93-008, March 1994.
9. ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown'' from Steven A.
Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 20, 1999.
10. ``Interim White Paper--Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure: Glass
Manufacturing,'' Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, December 12,
2005.
11. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document-- NOX
Emissions from Glass Manufacturing,'' US EPA 453/R-94-037, June 1994.
12. ``Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing
Industry,'' European Commission, December 2001.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, RACM and SIP relaxations. The
TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agencies modify the rules but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-4729 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 39769-39770] [FR Doc No: 2011-16864]

=======================================================================

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-64778]

Delegation of Authority to the Director of Its Division of

Enforcement

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending its rules to delegate authority to

the Director of the Division of Enforcement to disclose information

that could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a

whistleblower (``whistleblower identifying information'') to those

persons to whom disclosure may be made without loss of confidentiality

under the whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'').

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth H. Hall, Assistant Chief

Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Chief Counsel, Division of

Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20549-6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Public

Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1841 (2010), added Section 21F to the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6, which creates a new

program authorizing the Commission to make monetary awards to

whistleblowers who provide the Commission with ``original information''

that leads to the successful enforcement of a ``covered judicial or

administrative action'' or a ``related action,'' as those terms are

defined in Section 21F(a), 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(a). Awards may be paid in

connection with original information concerning any violation of the

federal securities laws, and may range from 10 to 30 percent of the

amounts collected as monetary sanctions imposed in the covered judicial

or administrative action brought by the Commission or in related

actions brought by other entities identified in the statute.

    To protect the identity of whistleblowers, Section 21F(h)(2)(A), 15

U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(2)(A) provides that,

except as otherwise permitted by that subsection, the Commission

``shall not disclose any information, including information provided by

a whistleblower to the Commission, which could reasonably be expected

to reveal the identity of a whistleblower.'' Such information may be

disclosed by the Commission under Section 21F(h)(2)(A) to those

entities identified in Section 21F(h)(2)(D)(i), 15 U.S.C. 78u-

6(h)(2)(D)(i), ``when necessary to accomplish the purposes of [the

Securities Exchange Act] and to protect investors.'' Otherwise, such

information may be disclosed by the Commission only in accordance with

the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, ``unless and

until required to be disclosed to a defendant or respondent in

connection with a public proceeding instituted by the Commission or any

entity described in [Section 21F(h)(2)(D)(i)].''

    Whistleblower identifying information may be disclosed by the

Commission to the following entities listed in Section 21F(h)(2)(D)(i):

The Attorney General of the United States; an appropriate regulatory

authority; a self-regulatory organization; a State attorney general in

connection with any criminal investigation; any appropriate State

regulatory authority; the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; a

foreign securities authority; or a foreign law enforcement authority.

Domestic entities to which the Commission discloses such information

``shall maintain such information as confidential in accordance with

the requirements established under [Section 21F(h)(2)(A].'' Section

21F(h)(2)(D)(ii)(I), 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(2)(D)(ii)(I). Foreign

securities authorities and foreign law enforcement authorities to which

the Commission discloses such information ``shall maintain such

information in accordance with such assurances of confidentiality as

the Commission determines appropriate.'' Section 21F(h)(2)(D)(ii)(II),

15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(2)(D)(ii)(II).

    The Commission is delegating authority to the Director of the

Division of Enforcement to disclose whistleblower identifying

information to the entities described in Section 21F(h)(2)(D), in

accordance with the restrictions of Section 21F(h)(2)(A) and (D). The

delegation will increase investor protection by facilitating

administration of the whistleblower award program and the

investigations and actions by those agencies and authorities that may

receive whistleblower identifying information pursuant to this

delegation.

Administrative Law Matters

    The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative

Procedure Act (``APA'') (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)), that this amendment

relates solely to agency organization, procedure, or practice and does

not relate to a substantive rule. Accordingly, the provisions of the

APA regarding notice of the proposed rulemaking, opportunities for

public participation, and publication of the amendment prior to its

effective date, 5 U.S.C. 553, are not applicable. For the same reason,

and because this amendment does not substantively affect the rights or

obligations of non-agency parties, the provisions of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), are not

applicable. Additionally, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, which apply only when notice and comment are required by the APA

or other law, 5 U.S.C. 603, are not applicable. Further, because the

amendment imposes no new burdens on parties in investigations, the

Commission does not believe it will have any anti-competitive effects

for purposes of Section 23(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15

U.S.C. 78w(a)(2). Finally, this amendment does not contain any

collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, as amended. Accordingly, the amendment is

effective July 7, 2011.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations

(Government agencies).

Text of Amendment

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of

the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND

REQUESTS

0

1. The authority citation for part 200, subpart A, continues to read in

part as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w,

78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0

2. Section 200.30-4 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(16) to read as

follows:

Sec.  200.30-4  Delegation of authority to Director of Division of

Enforcement.

* * * * *

    (a) * * *

    (16) To disclose information, in accordance with Section 21F(h)(2)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(2)), that

would reveal, or could reasonably be expected to reveal, the identity

of a whistleblower.

* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-16864 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 56547-56548]
[DOCID:fr16se10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 7, 2010, from 8
a.m. until 5 p.m. and on October 8, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Conference Center, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 1503, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading ``Resources for You''
click on ``White Oak Conference Center Parking and Transportation
Information for FDA Advisory Committee Meetings.''
    Contact Person: Karen Templeton-Somers, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-1373 (choose Option 4), email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this
meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On October 7 and 8, 2010, the committee will hear and
discuss presentations on the publicly available industry documents as
they relate to the issue of the impact of the use of menthol in
cigarettes on the public health, including such use among children,
African-Americans, Hispanics, and other racial and ethnic minorities.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
September 30, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on October 7,

2010. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify
the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature
of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
September 22, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 23,
2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Karen Templeton-
Somers at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23057 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14570]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request to Release Deed Restrictions
at the Yellowstone Airport, West Yellowstone, Montana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice requesting comment on request to release deed
restrictions at the Yellowstone Airport; re-opening and extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action re-opens and extends the comment period for the
notice of intent to rule on the request to release deed restrictions at
Yellowstone Airport under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47125 that
was published on January 28, 2014. Comments received regarding this
notice have requested that the FAA extend the comment period to allow
time for full consideration of the proposed ruling.

DATES: The notice of the comment period was published on January 28,
2014 (79 FR 4529), closed Februrary 28, 2014, and is re-opened until
May 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address:
    Mr. David S. Stelling, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration,
Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Helena Airports District
Office, 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Ms. Debbie Alke, Administrator, Montana
Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division, at the following
address:
    Ms. Debbie Alke, Administrator, Aeronautics Division, Montana
Department of Transportation, PO Box 200507, Helena, MT 59620-0507.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Engebrecht, Civil Engineer/
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Helena Airports District Office, 2725 Skyway Drive,
Suite 2, Helena, Montana 59602.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the request to release deed restrictions and other documents germane to
the request in person at the Yellowstone Airport.

    Issued in Helena, Montana on March 7, 2014.
David S. Stelling,
Manager, Helena Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-05639 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75806-75808]
[DOCID:fr12de08-129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-00-7006; FMCSA-00-7363; FMCSA-01-10570; FMCSA-02-
12294; FMCSA-04-18885; FMCSA-06-24783]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 12 individuals. FMCSA has
statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement
if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 3, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before January 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-00-7006; FMCSA-00-7363; FMCSA-
01-10570; FMCSA-02-12294; FMCSA-04-18885; FMCSA-06-24783, using any of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
Robert W. Brown, David D. Bungori, Jr., Benny J. Burke, David R. Cox,
Gary T. Hicks, Robert T. Hill, John C. McLaughlin, Kenneth D. Sisk,
David W. Skillman, Rick N. Ulrich, Stephen D. Vice, and Larry D.
Wedekind.
    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (73 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR 71610; 69 FR 64810; 71 FR
66217; 57 FR 57266; 69 FR 62741; 71 FR 62147; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066;
67 FR 71610; 69 FR 64810; 72 FR 184; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 69 FR
17267; 71 FR 43556; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 51346; 71 FR 50970;
69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310). Each of these 12
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these

drivers submit comments by January 12, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 12 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 5, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-29416 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11131-11133]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698; FRL-9923-55-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve in part and disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and
July 26, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, provided by
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for
inclusion into the Mississippi SIP. This final rulemaking pertains to
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Mississippi (hereafter referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP
submission''). With the exception of provisions pertaining to
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate
transport, visibility protection requirements and the state board
majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, EPA is
taking final action to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submissions, provided to EPA on May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012. EPA is
taking final action to disapprove Mississippi's May 29, 2012, and July
26, 2012, SIP submissions with regards to the state board majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income. EPA will
consider action with regards to the infrastructure elements related to
PSD permitting, visibility and interstate transport in a separate
action.

DATES: This rule will be effective April 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly
the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

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

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the
CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet
applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. These SIP submissions are commonly
referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIP submissions. Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon states to make an infrastructure SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the infrastructure SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such
infrastructure SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what
provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic
program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with previous ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic structural SIP elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements of section
110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to other provisions of the CAA
for submission of SIP revisions specifically applicable for
attainment planning purposes. These requirements are: (1)
Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that
subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I
of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed rulemaking does not address
infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and

for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport
 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution
 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Visibility Protection
 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data
 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    On November 24, 2014, EPA proposed to approve in part and
disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of the
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which EPA will address in a
separate action. EPA also proposed to disapprove a portion of
Mississippi's infrastructure submission for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
pertaining to state board majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income. See 79 FR 69787. EPA did not receive any comments,
adverse or otherwise, on the Agency's November 24, 2014, proposed
action. In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve in
part and disapprove in part Mississippi's May 29, 2012, and July 26,
2012, infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that the State meets
the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as proposed in the Agency's November
24, 2014, rulemaking. EPA will act on portions of Mississippi's
submissions not addressed in today's rulemaking in a separate action.

II. Final Action

    With the exceptions described below, EPA is taking final action to
approve that MDEQ's infrastructure SIP submissions, submitted May 29,
2012, and July 26, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have met the
above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is disapproving in
part section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure
submissions because the majority of members of boards that approve
permits or enforcement orders in Mississippi may still derive a
significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders issued by such Mississippi boards, and therefore,
its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income. This final
approval in part and disapproval in part, however, does not include the
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C)
and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), which will be addressed by EPA in
a separate action. With the exceptions noted above Mississippi has
addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 1, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the

finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 11, 2015.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic  submittal date/ EPA approval date       Explanation
           provision             or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)               Mississippi...........       7/26/2012  3/2/2015 [Insert   With the exception of
 Infrastructure Requirements                                             citation of        sections:
 for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone                                               publication].     110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
 National Ambient Air Quality                                                               concerning PSD
 Standards.                                                                                permitting
                                                                                requirements;
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                and (II) (prongs 1
                                                                                through 4)
                                                                                concerning
                                                                                interstate transport
                                                                                requirements;
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
                                                                                concerning state
                                                                                board majority
                                                                                requirements
                                                                                respecting
                                                                                significant portion
                                                                                of income; and
                                                                                110(a)(2)(J)
                                                                                concerning
                                                                                visibility
                                                                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1272 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1272  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (b) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Mississippi, through
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on May 29,
2012, and July 26, 2012, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards concerning state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income. EPA is disapproving MDEQ's submittal
with respect to section 128(a)(1) because a majority of board members
may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject
to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards,
therefore, its current SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income for the 2008 8-
hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

[FR Doc. 2015-04140 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12708-12712]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04923]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71637; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide Members
With a Risk Management Tool That Will Enable Members To Monitor Trading
Activity and Receive Notifications When Pre-Set Trading Limits Are
Reached

February 28, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On November 15, 2013, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2013-12 (``Proposed Rule
Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule
Change was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2013.\3\
NSCC voluntarily extended the Commission's period of review of the
Proposed Rule Change on January 9, 2014. The Commission received one
comment letter to the Proposed Rule Change \4\ and one response letter
from NSCC.\5\ This order approves the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Release No. 34-70946 (Nov. 26, 2013), 78 FR 72737 (Dec. 3,
2013).
    \4\ Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from
Manisha Kimmel, Executive Director, Financial Information Forum
(``FIF'') (Dec. 23, 2013) (hereinafter ``FIF Letter'').
    \5\ Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from
Murray C. Pozmanter, Managing Director, Depository Trust and
Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') (Jan. 15, 2014) (hereinafter ``NSCC
Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    NSCC filed the Proposed Rule Change to amend its Rules & Procedures
(``Rules'') in order to implement DTCC Limit Monitoring, a risk
management tool.\6\ As discussed below, the tool will enable NSCC's
members (``Members'') \7\ to view their trading exposure across markets
and at the CUSIP and individual trade levels through Risk Entities
created by the Member. DTCC Limit Monitoring will then alert the Member
when trading limits for Risk Entities are approached and when limits
are reached. Members have discretion to determine whether to take
action in response to an alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DTCC Limit Monitoring is separate from and will operate
independently of other risk management tools developed by other
market participants (e.g., registered securities exchanges). Release
No. 34-70946, supra note 3, at 2 n.3.
    \7\ Members that clear trades for others or participate in
special representative transactions will be required to use DTCC
Limit Monitoring. Approximately 85 percent of Members are in this
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Trading Data Captured

    Through DTCC Limit Monitoring, Members will be able to monitor the
intraday, post-trade \8\ clearing activity of their own trading desks,
their correspondents, and their clients.\9\ The clearing activity
captured by DTCC Limit Monitoring will include: (i) Post-trade data
relating to unsettled equity and fixed income securities trades that
were compared or recorded through NSCC's trade capture mechanisms \10\
on that day (``LM Trade Date Data''), and (ii) other applicable trade
positions that the Member chooses to input at the start of or
throughout the day (``LM Member-Provided Data'') (collectively, ``LM
Transaction Data'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the purposes of this Proposed Rule Change, ``post-
trade'' refers to the period in a transaction lifecycle after it is
submitted to NSCC for clearing and settlement. Release No. 34-70946,
supra note 3, at 2 n.4.
    \9\ In compliance with NSCC Rule 49, Members are only able to
view trading activity with respect to their own clearing account(s).
    \10\ Such mechanisms include NSCC's Universal Trade Capture and
Real-Time Trade Matching trade capture and comparisons systems.
    \11\ NSCC states that, since NSCC will not be the originator of
the information made available through DTCC Limit Monitoring, NSCC
will not be responsible for: (i) The completeness or accuracy of LM
Trade Date Data; (ii) other information or data that it receives
from Members or third parties and that is used in DTCC Limit
Monitoring or received and compared or recorded by NSCC; or (iii)
any errors, omissions, or delays that may occur in the transmission
of such data or information, as provided in the Rules. Release No.
34-70946, supra note 3, at 7-8. Additionally, because not all
transactions are submitted to NSCC in real-time, NSCC can only
provide Members using DTCC Limit Monitoring with LM Trade Date Data
as it is compared or recorded through NSCC; accordingly, LM Trade
Date Data may not reflect all transactions. Id.

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

B. Establishing Risk Entities

    A Member that uses DTCC Limit Monitoring will create Risk Entities
for its own trading desks, each correspondent firm, and each client for
which the Member clears trades. The Member will define each Risk
Entity's rules for aggregating LM Trade Date Data and LM Member-
Provided Data and set trading limits \12\ based on the net notional
value \13\ of the aggregated LM Transaction Data. DTCC Limit Monitoring
will provide Members a screen-based view of their LM Transaction Data
for a given day, aggregated and organized according to trading limits
set by the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The rules governing DTCC Limit Monitoring will refer to
such trading limits also as ``parameters.'' Id. at 5.
    \13\ For purposes of DTCC Limit Monitoring, ``net notional''
will mean the sum of the absolute value of exposure for each
security ticker symbol. For example, a firm that is net-long in
Company X for $50,000 and net-short in Company Z for $100,000 has a
net notional exposure of $150,000. Id. at 5 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Trading Limits

    DTCC Limit Monitoring will alert a Member when a pre-set trading
limit with respect to the trading activity of one of its Risk Entities
is approached and when it is reached. Specifically, DTCC Limit
Monitoring will alert a Member when the net notional value of
aggregated LM Transaction Data for a Member's Risk Entity is:
     50 percent of the trading limit set by the Member for that
Risk Entity;
     75 percent of the trading limit set by the Member for that
Risk Entity;
     90 percent of the trading limit set by the Member for that
Risk Entity; and
     100 percent of the trading limit set by the Member for
that Risk Entity.\14\

    \14\ DTCC Limit Monitoring will also alert a Member when the
trading activity of a Risk Entity returns below an alert threshold.

Members may elect to receive such alerts through the DTCC Limit
Monitoring interface, email, and/or an automated electronic message.
Members have the discretion to decide whether to take action pursuant
to an alert.\15\ Alerts do not trigger a block by NSCC on any trading
activity processed through NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NSCC may discuss a Member's use of DTCC Limit Monitoring,
including the trading limits set by that Member, with the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Risk Entity Reports

    Risk Entity information, such as alert history, characteristics,
and end-of-day positions, will be provided to Members in both an end-
of-day report and a monthly report.\16\ Members will be required to
identify primary and secondary contacts within their firm to receive
alerts and reports. Additionally, Members will be required to review
their Risk Entities' alerts and reports on an on-going basis and, as
deemed appropriate by the Member, modify trading limits to reflect
current trading activities within each of their Risk Entities. Changes
made by Members with respect to trading limits will be made in real-
time. All other updates and changes made by Members to their Risk
Entities will take effect overnight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NSCC states that reports and data provided to Members
through DTCC Limit Monitoring are not intended to impact the timing
or status of NSCC's guaranty of any transaction in NSCC's Continuous
Net Settlement or Balance Order Securities. Release No. 34-70946,
supra note 3, at 7. Furthermore, the issuance of information or
data, or the lack thereof, to Members through DTCC Limit Monitoring
will not in and of itself indicate or have any bearing on the status
of any trade, including, but not limited to, the status of a trade
as compared, locked-in, validated, guaranteed, or not guaranteed
trades. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Mandatory Use

    Although DTCC Limit Monitoring will be available to all
Members,\17\ NSCC will require the following Members to use the tool:
(1) Any NSCC full-service Member that clears for others; (2) any NSCC
full-service Member that submits transactions to NSCC's trade capture
system either as a Qualified Special Representative (``QSR'') or
Special Representative, pursuant to Procedure IV (Special
Representative Service) of the Rules; and (3) any NSCC full-service
Member that has established a 9A/9B relationship in order to allow
another Member (either a QSR or Special Representative) to submit
locked-in trade data on its behalf.\18\ However, NSCC will not charge a
fee for the use of DTCC Limit Monitoring, whether voluntary or
mandatory, and, according to NSCC, implementation and use of the tool
will require minimal, if any, changes to Members' current systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NSCC states that since the information provided by DTCC
Limit Monitoring is to be used by the Member at the Member's
discretion, the Proposed Rule Change provides that any Member that
registers for DTCC Limit Monitoring shall indemnify NSCC, and any of
NSCC's employees, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, and
participants who may sustain any loss, liability, or expense as a
result of a third party claim related to any act or omission by the
Member made in reliance upon data or information transmitted to the
Member through DTCC Limit Monitoring. Id. at 8.
    \18\ Members that are required to use DTCC Limit Monitoring will
be required to create a Risk Entity for their own trading desks, as
well as for all correspondents and clients for which the Members
clear trades through NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letter and Response

    The Commission received one comment letter to the Proposed Rule
Change \19\ and one response letter from NSCC.\20\ Below is a summary
of the concerns raised by the commenter regarding the Proposed Rule
Change and NSCC's responses to those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See FIF Letter, supra note 4.
    \20\ See NSCC Response, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Completeness of Trading Data

    The commenter argues that DTCC Limit Monitoring will have
incomplete trading information.\21\ Specifically, the commenter claims
that the tool will not capture Institutional Delivery (``ID'') trades,
options trades, or futures trades that may hedge or offset positions
captured by the tool.\22\ The commenter also states that certain
information identifying the parties to a trade is not always required
or validated by certain exchanges or other venues that submit trades to
NSCC for clearing; thus, DTCC Limit Monitoring may not accurately
account for such trades.\23\ Furthermore, the commenter points out that
not all trades are submitted to NSCC for clearance in real-time.\24\
The commenter argues that these issues may result in DTCC Limit
Monitoring presenting incomplete and/or inaccurate trade positions to
Members.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 1-2.
    \22\ Id. at 2.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NSCC acknowledges that certain transactions, such as
ID trades, options trades, and futures trades are not within the scope
of DTCC Limit Monitoring, but it believes that Members will take that
fact into consideration when setting trading limits and responding to
alerts received.\26\ Moreover, NSCC believes that implementation of
DTCC Limit Monitoring should not be delayed in order to discuss the
expansion of the tool to incorporate transactions outside the purview
of NSCC, which would likely be a complex endeavor.\27\ NSCC also states
that it has recently implement a previously approved rule that requires
all locked-in trade data submitted to NSCC for trade recording be
submitted in real-time.\28\ Although that rule does not apply to
correspondent clearing trades, nor is there a rule that requires all
information identifying parties to a transaction be included with each
trade submission, NSCC explains that Members are

permitted and encouraged to take such action and often do, given the
associated benefits.\29\ Accordingly, NSCC argues that DTCC Limit
Monitoring, as currently structured, will offer Members significant
risk management benefits by providing a single, centralized, and
aggregated view of all equity transactions submitted to NSCC for
clearance.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NSCC Response, supra note 5, at 4.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ Id. at 4-5.
    \30\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Benefits of Trade Alerts

    The commenter states that there are variable benefits offered by
DTCC Limit Monitoring's post-trade alerts.\31\ For example, the
commenter argues that some Members have dedicated significant resources
to proprietary risk management platforms based on pre-trade and/or
post-trade alerts, and such existing platforms may not incorporate the
data provided by DTCC Limit Monitoring.\32\ The commenter also asserts
that Members with sophisticated risk management tools are capable of
measuring, monitoring, and aggregating such trade data in more detail
than DTCC Limit Monitoring.\33\ Similarly, the commenter argues that
DTCC Limit Monitoring does not provide sufficient granularity because
it aggregates trades by clearing numbers or Market Participant
Identifiers (``MPID''); thus, where a Member has multiple trading desks
associated with a single MPID, it may prove difficult for the Member to
identify the specific source that triggered a DTCC Limit Monitoring
alert.\34\ Accordingly, the commenter suggests that Members should have
flexibility within the tool to determine the level of granularity of
the sources with respect to Risk Entities, in accordance with each
Member's risk management preferences.\35\ Therefore, the commenter
contends that the benefits of DTCC Limit Monitoring are limited,
especially for self-clearing Members with no correspondents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id. at 3.
    \36\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NSCC states that DTCC consulted with its Members and
other industry participants when developing DTCC Limit Monitoring.
Industry participants indicated that pre-trade monitoring, as a stand-
alone risk management tool at the Member level, may not provide
adequate protection for firms or against systemic risk.\37\ NSCC also
states that DTCC Limit Monitoring was not developed to replace pre-
trade and real-time risk management tools, but as an independent,
standardized, post-trade surveillance tool that would contribute to a
multi-layered risk management system, in efforts to avoid a single
point of failure within such a system.\38\ Additionally, NSCC
highlights that Members will be able to integrate the data and
information provided by DTCC Limit Monitoring with their own risk
management processes as they see fit.\39\ Finally, NSCC states that
DTCC Limit Monitoring uses the MPID to allocate transactions because
the MPID is the standard industry identifier used by exchanges and
other execution platforms for identifying the origin of an executed
trade.\40\ Therefore, NSCC believes that each of its Members, including
those with sophisticated, internal risk management tools, will benefit
from using DTCC Limit Monitoring.\41\ The commenter acknowledges that
some Members ``believe post-trade alerts disseminated by DTCC would
increase market stability by offering an added level of protection
against clearing firm failure.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See NSCC Response, supra note 5, at 5.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ See id.
    \42\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Operational Burdens

    The commenter argues that the requirement to set and maintain
trading limits imposes a significant operational burden on Members.\43\
Specifically, the commenter states that establishing meaningful trading
limits is not a trivial task and will require the input of staff from
operations, ``front office,'' risk, and compliance.\44\ Accordingly,
the commenter contends that sufficient implementation time would be
required in order to set meaningful trading limits that are consistent
with the Member's existing risk management platforms.\45\ Furthermore,
the commenter states that there will be costs associated with the
maintenance of trading limits, including communications with NSCC
regarding the reasonableness of such limits.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. at 3.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NSCC states that Members should not incur a
significant burden in initiating and maintaining their Risk Entities in
DTCC Limit Monitoring.\47\ For example, NSCC states that subscribing to
the tool will not require any system changes for Members.\48\ NSCC also
states that it has made available various information documents,
conducted numerous webinars, held group and one-on-one information and
training sessions, and met with industry groups and individual Members
to discuss DTCC Limit Monitoring and to support Members in anticipation
of implementing the tool and reducing efforts needed to maintain
it.\49\ NSCC asserts that it will continue to provide such support.\50\
NSCC also states that many Members already have risk management staff
in place to manage proprietary risk management platforms, but NSCC
acknowledges that the use of DTCC Limit Monitoring will require
additional time and effort by such staff.\51\ Nevertheless, NSCC
believes that any time spent using DTCC Limit Monitoring is justified
by the risk management benefits offered by the tool to Members and the
industry.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ NSCC Response, supra note 5, at 6.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency of Mandatory Requirement With Industry Practice

    The commenter argues that the mandatory use of DTCC Limit
Monitoring for certain Members is inconsistent with other risk
management tools offered by other self-regulatory organizations
(``SRO'').\53\ For example, the commenter references risk management
tools by NYSE \54\ and BATS,\55\ neither of which are mandatory for
their respective members.\56\ However, the commenter acknowledges the
unique position of NSCC as an industry-wide utility that impacts a
greater breadth of participants than any single exchange.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \54\ See Release No. 34-71164 (Dec. 20, 2013), 78 FR 79044 (Dec.
27, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-08).
    \55\ See Release No. 34-68330 (Nov. 30, 2012), 77 FR 72894 (Dec.
6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-045).
    \56\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NSCC highlights that trading activity processed
through those SROs is subject to other mandatory risk management
requirements (e.g., exchange rules regarding ``clearly erroneous''
trades).\58\ NSCC also notes that those SROs do not assume the same
level of risks as NSCC, which, as a central counterparty (``CCP''), has
a greater stake in ensuring that its Members implement effective risk
management tools.\59\ NSCC believes that Members that clear for others
or participate in special representative transactions must use DTCC
Limit

Monitoring for it to be maximally effective because those Members have
less control when clearing and settling trading activity that is
executed by another firm.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NSCC Response, supra note 5, at 7.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Id. at 3, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Additional Time To Discuss

    Finally, given the concerns it raises, the commenter believes that
additional discussion is necessary before use of DTCC Limit Monitoring
is required and that an opportunity exists for a phased implementation
of the tool that will balance the needs of the Members.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC responded that it does not believe the concerns raised by the
commenter warrant additional discussion before making DTCC Limit
Monitoring a requirement for certain Members.\62\ NSCC states that the
launch of DTCC Limit Monitoring will be followed by a six-month phase-
in period, during which Members can seek additional support from NSCC
in establishing any internal procedures with respect to DTCC Limit
Monitoring.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ NSCC Response, supra note 5, at 7.
    \63\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act \64\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of an SRO if the Commission finds the
proposed rule change consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such an
organization. After a thorough review and careful consideration of the
comments received, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change
is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act, and the applicable rules and
regulations thereunder.\65\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\66\ and Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1),\67\ as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \67\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Assessment of the Commenter's Concerns and NSCC's Responses

    The Commission fully considered the comment letter and NSCC's
response as it carefully assessed the Proposed Rule Change for
consistency with the Act. The commenter raises no issues, as detailed
above and addressed below, that convinced the Commission that the
Proposed Rule Change is inconsistent with the Act and the applicable
rules and regulations thereunder--the standard by which the Commission
must evaluate proposed rule changes.\68\ Additionally, the Commission
believes that NSCC articulates colorable arguments in its response to
the concerns expressed by the commenter,\69\ thus satisfying NSCC's
burden to demonstrate that the Propose Rule Change is adequately
designed to comply with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \69\ See generally NSCC Response, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission understands that the trading information
captured by DTCC Limit Monitoring will not reflect every trade or every
detail of every trade made by Members, as identified by the commenter
and acknowledged by NSCC.\70\ Nevertheless, the Commission believes
that the information captured is sufficiently extensive to provide a
useful risk management tool for Members. Furthermore DTCC Limit
Monitoring permits Members to input LM Member-Provided Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 1-2; NSCC Response, supra
note 5, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission recognizes that Members may disagree on the
usefulness of DTCC Limit Monitoring. The Commission believes that DTCC
Limit Monitoring will serve as a practical risk management tool for
Members that do not currently employ such a tool. Alternatively, for
Members that already use an internal risk management system, DTCC Limit
Monitoring can serve as a meaningful backstop to that system in the
event of failure, thus increasing market stability, as acknowledged by
the commenter.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, regarding the operational costs that DTCC Limit Monitoring
may impose on Members, the Commission understands that: (i) Access to
the tool will require little, if any, changes to a Member's systems;
(ii) NSCC has provided and will continue to provide support for all
Members implementing and using the tool; and (iii) a six-month ``phase-
in'' period will follow the enactment of the tool, in order to
accommodate Members that need additional time or assistance.
Consequently, the Commission believes that Members should experience
minimal additional costs, either in time or money, in implementing and
maintaining DTCC Limit Monitoring.
    Fourth, the Commission understands that NSCC will require
approximately 85 percent of its Members to use DTCC Limit Monitoring.
Given the unique risks carried by NSCC as a prominent CCP, which the
commenter acknowledges,\72\ and given that there will be no fee charged
for using DTCC Limit Monitoring, the Commission finds that the
mandatory nature of the tool for Members that clear trades for other
firms or allow special representative transactions is reasonable and
appropriate.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ FIF Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \73\ The Commission notes that other SROs have implemented
mandatory risk management tools. See, e.g., Release Nos. 34-70132
(Aug. 7, 2013), 78 FR 49311 (Aug. 13, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-38) and 34-
71252 (Jan. 7, 2014), 79 FR 2224 (Jan. 13, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-
106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission does not believe that further discussions
are needed prior to approving the Proposed Rule Change and the
implementation of DTCC Limit Monitoring because the Commission finds
the Proposed Rule Change consistent with the Act, even in consideration
of the concerns raised by the commenter, and because DTCC Limit
Monitoring will be phased in over a six-month period.

B. Compliance With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \74\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a registered clearing agency ``are designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions . . ., to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a CCP, NSCC occupies an important role in the securities
settlement system by interposing itself between counterparties to
financial transactions, thereby reducing certain risks faced by Members
and contributing to global financial stability. In this role, NSCC is
necessarily subject to certain risks in the event of a Member default--
risks that could also affect other Members and the marketplace as a
whole. DTCC Limit Monitoring is designed to help mitigate the risk of a
Member default by providing all Members with a tool to monitor their
aggregated net notional trading activity, via Risk Entities, for
transactions submitted to NSCC and any other transactions included by
the Member as LM Member-Provided Data. By enabling all Members to
monitor intraday trading activity for their Risk Entities and by
alerting a Member when its activity approaches and breaches Member-set

trading limits, DTCC Limit Monitoring can notify a Member of trading
abnormalities that could threaten the stability of the Member and,
potentially, NSCC's ability to clear and settle transactions or
safeguard securities in its possession. Therefore, the Commission finds
the Proposed Rule Change compliant with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Compliance With Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1)

    Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) regarding measurement and management
of credit exposure requires a CCP to establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
measure its credit exposures to its participants at least once a day
and limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its
participants under normal market conditions so that the operations of
the CCP would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would
not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1). Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) was
adopted as part of the Clearing Agency Standards. Release No. 34-
68080 (Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66219 (Nov. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTCC Limit Monitoring will enable Members to monitor intraday
trading activity for each of their Risk Entities and will alert Members
when such activity approaches and breaches Member-set trading limits.
At NSCC, that trading activity manifests as credit risk borne by NSCC.
Therefore, by providing Members notification of possible trading
abnormalities, DTCC Limit Monitoring serves as an NSCC risk management
tool. Moreover, absent the tool's alert feature, particularly where a
Member lacks an internal risk management system or such system has
failed, trading abnormalities may go unnoticed, which could increase
the likelihood of a Member default, including NSCC's and non-defaulting
Members' risk. As such, the Commission finds the Proposed Rule Change
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds the Proposed
Rule Change consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,\79\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\80\ that the proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2013-12 be and hereby is
approved as of the date of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \81\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\81\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04923 Filed 3-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P