[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30219-30220]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1253]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs
may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer   Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida: Sumter...................  Unincorporated areas   September 22, 2011;   The Honorable Don          January 27, 2011...............       120296
                                     of Sumter County (11-  September 29, 2011;   Burgess, Chairman,
                                     04-4816P).             The Sumter County     Sumter County Board of
                                                            Times.                Commissioners, 7375
                                                                                Powell Road, Wildwood,
                                                                                FL 34785.
Georgia: Bryan....................  City of Richmond       December 7, 2011;     The Honorable E. Harold    November 29, 2011..............       130018
                                     Hill, (11-04-4401P).   December 14, 2011;    Fowler,Mayor, City of
                                                            The Bryan County      Richmond Hill, 40
                                                            News.                 Richard Davis Drive,
                                                                                Richmond Hill, GA 31324.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-12290 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39152-39154]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2018-0008-N-7]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Information Collection Request; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes the information collections and
their expected burden. On May 10, 2018, FRA published a notice
providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
September 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,

Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB
at the following address: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-
212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve an ICR. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5
CFR 1320.8-12. On May 10, 2018, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on the ICR for which it is now
seeking OMB approval. See 83 FR 21815 (May 10, 2018). During the
comment period, on June 4, 2018, counsel for the Association of
American Railroads asked clarifying questions, on behalf of its member
railroads, regarding FRA's proposed changes to Section 6 of the
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166). Consistent with the abstract
below, and FRA's summary in its 60-day notice, FRA confirmed that a
host railroad may provide its approximate completion dates for
interoperability testing with each tenant railroad in Section 6 of the
reporting forms. FRA received no written comments in response to the
60-day notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR at 44983. Therefore,
respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB within 30
days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Positive Train Control.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0553.
    Abstract: Under the Positive Train Control Enforcement and
Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act), each railroad subject to 49
U.S.C. 20157(a) must submit an annual progress report to FRA by March
31, 2016, and annually thereafter, until PTC system implementation is
completed. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1). The PTCEI Act specifically requires
each railroad to provide certain information in the annual reports
regarding its progress toward implementing a PTC system, in addition to
any other information FRA requests. See id. In addition, 49 U.S.C.
20157(c)(2) requires FRA to conduct compliance reviews at least
annually to ensure each railroad is complying with its revised PTC
Implementation Plan (PTCIP), including any FRA-approved amendments. The
PTCEI Act requires railroads to provide information to FRA that FRA
determines is necessary to adequately conduct such compliance reviews.
49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
    Under its statutory and regulatory investigative authorities, FRA
currently requires, and seeks to continue requiring, each subject
railroad to submit Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165)
and Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.166) on its PTC system
implementation progress. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1)-(2); see also 49
U.S.C. 20107; 49 CFR 236.1009(h).
    Specifically, in addition to the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form
FRA F 6180.166) due each March 31 under 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1),
railroads must provide quarterly progress reports covering the
preceding three-month period and submit the forms to FRA on the dates
in the following table until full PTC system implementation is
completed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Due dates for
                                    Coverage priod     quarterly reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q1..............................  January 1-March 31  April 30.
Q2..............................  April 1-June 30...  July 31.
Q3..............................  July 1-September    October 31.
                                   30.
Q4..............................  October 1-December  January 31.
                                   31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each railroad must submit its Quarterly PTC Progress Reports on
Form FRA F 6180.165 and its Annual PTC Progress Reports on Form FRA F
6180.166 on FRA's Secure Information Repository at https://sir.fra.dot.gov.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Quarterly and Annual PTC Progress Report
Forms

    On August 15, 2017, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress Report
(Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F
6180.166) for a period of one year, expiring on August 31, 2018. The
current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form and Annual PTC Progress
Report Form, as approved through August 31, 2018, can be accessed and
downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17365 and https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17366, respectively.
These versions of the forms took into account the Association of
American Railroads' written comments on behalf of itself and its member
railroads; the American Public Transportation Association's written
comments on behalf of Northeast Illinois Commuter Rail System, the Utah
Transit Authority, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
of Oregon, and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority; and industry
stakeholders' comments during FRA's public meeting on April 19, 2016.
FRA published minutes from the meeting on www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FRA-2016-0002. For a summary of the

oral and written comments and FRA's responses to the comments, please
see 81 FR 28140, May 9, 2016.
    Following the above cited 60-day public comment period, FRA is now
requesting OMB's re-approval of the forms, with the five changes
described below. First, in Section 1 of the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report Form (FRA F 6180.165), FRA proposes revising the row
``Territories Where Revenue Service Demonstration Has Been Initiated''
to state ``Territories in Revenue Service Demonstration or in PTC
Operation'' for clarity, based on additional feedback from the industry
following OMB's approval of the form on August 15, 2017. FRA intended
this row to include any and all territories where a railroad had
initiated revenue service demonstration (RSD), even if a railroad
subsequently obtained PTC System Certification from FRA and is
operating its PTC system in revenue service. The purpose of this row is
to collect information regarding a railroad's progress toward meeting
the statutory criteria under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi)-(vii), if
applicable. Based on feedback from the industry, FRA proposes
clarifying the language in this row in Section 1 so railroads
understand that a railroad can include in this row the number of
territories where its PTC system is in RSD or in operation. This
proposed change does not result in any additional reporting burden as
it is only a clarifying change.
    Second, in footnotes 4 and 6 of the Quarterly PTC Progress Report
Form (FRA F 6180.165), FRA proposes adding a hyperlink to Appendix A.
The footnotes currently state: ``If a particular category listed in
this table does not apply to the railroad's technology, please indicate
`N/A.' A railroad may add categories or subcategories if it wants to
provide more detail.'' FRA proposes adding the phrase ``in Appendix A''
to the second sentence with a hyperlink to that appendix to the form,
as it will help direct railroads to the available section of the PDF
where they can provide additional information. A hyperlink to Appendix
A was in the corresponding footnotes in the prior version of the
Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form that OMB approved through June 30,
2017, but the hyperlink was omitted in error from the current version
of the form. This proposed change (i.e., adding a hyperlink to an
existing appendix) does not result in any additional reporting burden
as it is only a formatting change.
    Third, in Section 4 (entitled ``Installation/Track Segment
Progress--Current Status'') of both the quarterly form and the annual
form, FRA proposes replacing the ``Testing'' option in the drop-down
menu with two more precise options--i.e., ``Field Testing'' and
``Revenue Service Demonstration.'' This modification will help ensure
clearer and more accurate reporting, without imposing an additional
reporting burden.
    Fourth, with respect to only the Annual PTC Progress Report Form
(FRA F 6180.166), FRA proposes to delete a now inapplicable instruction
from footnote 7 in Section 4, which stated,

Please note: For the Annual PTC Progress Report due by March 31,
2017, this mandatory geographic requirement (that must be satisfied
by either completing Column 5 in Section 4 or submitting a GIS
shapefile as described above) is due to FRA by April 30, 2017. Every
other part of this form must be completed and submitted to FRA by
March 31, 2017. This limited extension applies only in 2017.

FRA delayed the due date for submitting that specific information in
2017 only, per OMB's request, to ensure railroads had sufficient time
to compile and provide the information. FRA proposes removing that note
from footnote 7 as it is no longer applicable or necessary. By statute,
a railroad's Annual PTC Progress Report is due by March 31st each year
until it completes PTC system implementation. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1).
    Fifth, with respect to both the quarterly form and the annual form,
FRA proposes making certain changes to Section 6 (entitled ``Update on
Interoperability Progress''). FRA proposes removing the portion of the
instruction that states a host railroad must provide information about
the status of each tenant railroad's rolling stock ``if the tenant does
not have a separate PTCIP on file.'' FRA proposes removing this
limiting instruction because FRA needs to know the PTC implementation
status of any tenant railroad that operates on the host railroad's
property, except any tenant railroad that is subject to an exception
under 49 CFR 236.1006(b). In addition, before the final column in the
table in Section 6, FRA proposes adding a column entitled, ``Scheduled
Completion Date for Interoperability Testing.'' This information is
necessary for FRA to understand the progress a host railroad and each
of its required tenant railroads are jointly making toward testing and
achieving PTC system interoperability, consistent with host railroad's
PTC Implementation Plan and/or PTC Safety Plan. FRA estimates the
additional burden for a host railroad to complete this new reporting
requirement would be, on average, approximately 2.5 hours for Class I
railroads and large passenger railroads; 1.25 hours for Class II and
medium passenger railroads; and thirty minutes for Class III, terminal,
and small passenger railroads.

III. Overview of Information Collection

    The associated collection of information is summarized below.
    Title: Positive Train Control (Quarterly Positive Train Control
Progress Report and Annual Positive Train Control Progress Report).
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a currently approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.165 and FRA F 6180.166.
    Respondent Universe: 41 Railroad Carriers.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 147,526.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 2,728,528 hours.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Juan D. Reyes III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-16880 Filed 8-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72636-72638]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25344]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79100; File No. SR-ISE-2016-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

October 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 3, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in
more detail below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees to make changes to (1) the Market Maker Plus \3\
program in SPY and QQQ, (2) Priority Customer \4\ taker fees in Select
Symbols,\5\ and (3) the fee cap for strategy orders. Each of these
changes is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer a specified percentage of the time
for series trading between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less
than or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $3.00 (for options
whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration
months. The specified percentage is at least 80% but lower than 85%
of the time for Tier 1, at least 85% but lower than 95% of the time
for Tier 2, and at least 95% of the time for Tier 3. A Market
Maker's single best and single worst quoting days each month based
on the front two expiration months, on a per symbol basis, will be
excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies for this
rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker for the rebate.
    \4\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \5\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Plus
    In order to promote and encourage liquidity in Select Symbols, the
Exchange offers Market Makers \6\ that meet the quoting requirements
for Market Maker Plus enhanced rebates for adding liquidity in those
symbols. These Market Maker Plus rebates are provided on a per symbol
basis in three tiers based on the time the Market Maker is quoting at
the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''). Currently, the rebate is
$0.10 per contract for Tier 1, $0.18 per contract for Tier 2, and $0.22
per contract for Tier 3.\7\ The Exchange now proposes to introduce a
special rebate program for Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus
in SPY or QQQ.\8\ Specifically, Market Makers that achieve Tier 2 or 3
of Market Maker Plus in either SPY or QQQ will receive the SPY or QQQ
rebate based on the highest Market Maker Plus tier achieved in either
product. For example, a Market Maker that achieves Tier 1 Market Maker
Plus in QQQ but Tier 3 Market Maker Plus in SPY will receive a Tier 3
rebate in both SPY and QQQ. Instead of the current rebates, however,
Market Maker Plus orders in SPY or QQQ would be entitled to a rebate of
$0.16 per contract for Tier 2, and $0.20 per contract for Tier 3. The
Exchange believes that allowing Market Makers to qualify for higher
tiers of Market Maker Plus in SPY and QQQ based on quoting at the NBBO
in either product will encourage Market Makers to continue to make
tight markets in these very active symbols, even with the slightly
lower proposed rebate amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \7\ For all Market Maker Plus tiers, a $0.30 per contract fee
applies when trading against Priority Customer complex orders that
leg into the regular order book. No fee is charged or rebate
provided when trading against non[hyphen]Priority Customer complex
orders that leg into the regular order book.
    \8\ Market Makers will continue to receive the rebates described
above for products other than SPY or QQQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Customer Taker Fees
    The Exchange charges a taker fee for regular orders in Select
Symbols. This fee is $0.44 per contract for Market Maker orders, and
$0.45 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker,\9\ Firm Proprietary \10\/
Broker-Dealer,\11\ and Professional Customer orders.\12\ For Priority
Customer orders this fee is $0.30 per contract, or $0.25 per contract
for Members with a total affiliated Priority Customer average daily
volume (``ADV'') that equals or exceeds 200,000 contracts.\13\ The
Exchange now proposes to increase the taker fee for Priority Customer
orders in Select Symbols to $0.31 per contract, or $0.26 per contract
for Members that achieve the higher Priority Customer ADV tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Non[hyphen]ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \10\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \11\ A ``Broker[hyphen]Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a
member for a broker[hyphen]dealer account that is not its own
proprietary account.
    \12\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \13\ Priority Customer ADV includes all volume in all symbols
and order types. All eligible volume from affiliated Members will be
aggregated in determining total affiliated Priority Customer ADV,
provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the Members
as reflected on each Member's Form BD, Schedule A. For purposes of
determining Priority Customer ADV, any day that the regular order
book is not open for the entire trading day or the Exchange
instructs members in writing to route their orders to other markets
may be excluded from such calculation; provided that the Exchange
will only remove the day for members that would have a lower ADV
with the day included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strategy Caps
    In November 2015, the Exchange introduced a strategy fee cap
program that provides a cap on Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer fees charged for
six types of strategy trades: Reversals, conversions, jelly rolls,
mergers, short stock interest, and box spreads.\14\ In particular, the
Exchange caps transaction fees associated with strategy executions at
$750 per trade for orders executed on the same day in the same option
class. In addition, strategy trades are subject to a monthly cap of
$25,000 per member for all strategy executions.\15\ If a member submits
an order that qualifies for the per trade or per month fee cap for
strategy orders, only the amount actually paid for those trades (i.e.,
the capped amounts) are counted towards the Crossing Fee Cap, if
applicable.\16\ The Exchange now proposes to eliminate these strategy
caps, which have not attracted a significant volume of strategy
executions to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76451 (November 17,
2015), 80 FR 73034 (November 23, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-37).
    \15\ All eligible volume from affiliated members will be
aggregated for purposes of the fee cap, provided there is at least
75% common ownership between the members as reflected on each
member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    \16\ For example, if a member submits a strategy order that
would normally incur a fee of $2,000 but is capped at $750 per
trade, only the $750 that is actually paid by the member is counted
towards the Crossing Fee Cap, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Plus
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to offer
special rebates for Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus in SPY
or QQQ. As proposed, Market Makers would receive a slightly lower
Market Maker Plus rebate in these two symbols, but would be able to
receive higher tiers of rebates in both of these symbols by meeting the

requirements of Market Maker Plus in either symbol. The Market Maker
Plus program was designed by the Exchange to reward members based on
maintaining tight markets in options that they quote on ISE. The
proposed changes will continue to provide these incentives to Market
Makers, to the benefit of all market participants that trade on the
Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
fee change is unfairly discriminatory as all Market Makers will qualify
for the same rebates based on achieving the appropriate tier of Market
Maker Plus status in these products. Finally, the Exchange continues to
believe that it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer these rebates
only to Market Makers as Market Makers, and, in particular, those
Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus status, are subject to
additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting requirements)
that other market participants are not.
Priority Customer Taker Fees
    The Exchange believes that the increased Priority Customer taker
fees are reasonable and equitable because the proposed fees are only
one cent above their current levels, and remain significantly lower
than the fees charged to other market participants that remove
liquidity on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to provide
lower fees for Priority Customer orders. A Priority Customer is by
definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does
not apply to participants whose behavior is substantially similar to
that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, who
will generally submit a higher number of orders than Priority
Customers.
Strategy Caps
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to eliminate its fee cap for strategy orders as
the fee cap has not been successful in attracting that order flow to
the Exchange. In removing the fee cap, strategy trades will no longer
be singled out for special incentives on the Exchange, consistent with
treatment of these trades prior to the introduction of the fee cap in
November 2015.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fees and rebates remain competitive with
those on other options markets, and will continue to attract order flow
to the Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\20\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\21\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2016-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-25, and should be
submitted on or before November 10, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25344 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27168-27169]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket EPA-R10-OAR-2009-0340; FRL-9794-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Alaska: Mendenhall Valley PM[bdi1][bdi0] Nonattainment Area Limited
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Limited Maintenance Plan
(LMP) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) submitted by the
State of Alaska on May 8, 2009 for the Mendenhall Valley nonattainment
area (Mendenhall Valley NAA), and the State's request to redesignate
the area to attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-

OAR-2009-0340, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mr. Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA,
98101
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at telephone number: (206)
553-1949, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region
10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. The EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA
views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA receives no adverse
comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the
direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: March 12, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-10938 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58500-58502]
[DOCID:fr06oc05-174]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52534; File No. SR-CHX-2004-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 4 Thereto Relating to a Prohibition on Using a Layoff
Service Unless the Service Provides Required Information to the
Exchange

September 29, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On August 31, 2004, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend CHX Article V, Rule 4 to prohibit CHX
participants from using any communications means to send orders to
another market for execution (a ``layoff service''), unless the layoff
service has established a process for providing the Exchange with
specific information about the orders and the executions that
participants receive. On June 7, 2005 and June 27, 2005, the Exchange
filed Amendment Nos. 1 \3\ and 2 \4\ to the proposed rule change,
respectively. The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1
and 2, was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 12,
2005.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal, as
amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. On August 12, 2005, the CHX filed
Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.\6\ Amendment No. 3 was
published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on August 18,
2005.\7\ The Commission received no comments on Amendment No. 3. On
September 23, 2005, the CHX filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule
change.\8\ This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3; grants accelerated approval to Amendment
No. 4 of the proposed rule change; and solicits comments from
interested persons on Amendment No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Amendment No. 1 dated June 7, 2005. In Amendment No. 1,
the Exchange, among other things, added a requirement for
participants to provide additional information about their layoff
activity; replaced references to the Exchange's ``members'' with
references to its ``participants'' to reflect changes in terminology
associated with the Exchange's February 2005 demutualization;
required that participants notify the Exchange before using an
alternative or additional layoff vendor; and confirmed that these
rules would not replace any record retention obligations to which
the Exchange's participants would be subject under the Act and the
rules thereunder.
    \4\ See Amendment No. 2 dated June 27, 2005, replacing the
original filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. In Amendment
No. 2, the Exchange eliminated the requirement to provide
information about the contra party to the execution and made other
technical changes to the proposal.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51967 (July 1,
2005), 70 FR 40086.
    \6\ See Amendment No. 3 dated August 12, 2005. In Amendment No.
3, which supplemented the proposal as noticed, the CHX modified the
proposed rule text to eliminate the reference to an August 1, 2005
effective date and instead provided for an effective date of
September 30, 2005.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52248 (August 12,
2005), 70 FR 48610.
    \8\ See Amendment No. 4 dated September 23, 2005. In Amendment
No. 4, the Exchange amended the proposed rule to include a new
effective date of October 31, 2005 for NASDAQ/NM securities in order
to allow its participants and their layoff vendors additional time
to implement system changes to comply with the proposed rule change.
The effective date for Dual Trading System issues would remain at
September 30, 2005. The Commission notes that under the Exchange's
rules, Dual Trading System securities are securities listed on the
New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the American Stock Exchange, Inc., or
on markets other than the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. that are also
listed or traded on the CHX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange's proposal, which would amend the Exchange's rule
relating to communications from the trading floor, is designed to
provide the Exchange with the layoff service information that it needs
to enhance its surveillance programs. Specifically, the proposal would
prohibit Exchange participants, beginning on September 30, 2005 for
Dual Trading System issues \9\ and October 31, 2005 for NASDAQ/NM
securities,\10\ from using a layoff service to send orders to another
market for execution, unless that service (or the participant using the
service) has established a process for providing the Exchange with the
following specific information: (1) The symbol of the security to be
traded; (2) the clearing organization; (3) an order identifier that
uniquely identifies the order; (4) the participant recording the order
details; (5) the number of shares; (6) the side of the market on which
the order is placed; (7) a designation of the order type (e.g., market,
limit, stop, stop limit); (8) whether the order is for the account of a
customer or for the account of the participant sending the order; (9)
whether the order is short or short exempt; (10) any limit price and/or
stop price; (11) the date and time of order transmission; (12) the
market to which the order was transmitted; (13) the time in force; (14)
a designation of the order as held or not held; (15) any special
conditions or instructions associated with the order (including any
customer do-not-display instructions or all-or-none conditions); (16)
any modifications to the details set out in (1) through (15) for all or
part of an order or any cancellation of all or part of the order; (17)
the date and time of the transmission of any modifications to the order
or any cancellation of the order; (18) the date and time of any order
expiration; (19) the identification of the party canceling or modifying
the order; (20) the transaction price; (21) the number of shares
executed; (22) the date and time of execution; (23) settlement
instructions; (24) a system-generated time(s) of recording the required
information; and (25) any other information that the Exchange may
require from time to time.\11\ For purposes of this proposal, an
``order'' would be defined as any written, oral or electronic
instruction to effect a transaction.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6.
    \10\ See Amendment No. 4, supra note 8.
    \11\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
    \12\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other provisions of the proposal set out additional requirements
that are designed to ensure that the Exchange receives uniformly-
presented, useful data. For example, the Exchange proposes that all
information be provided on a real-time basis and in an electronic
format acceptable to the Exchange.\13\ In addition, each layoff service
would be required to synchronize its business clocks and maintain that
synchronization, with all time references expressed in terms of hours,
minutes, and seconds.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
    \14\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .02 and .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal provides that a violation of the proposed
new requirements would be considered conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade, in violation of CHX Article VIII, Rule
7.\15\ Therefore, these violations would not be eligible for handling
under the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan. The Exchange would also
prohibit a participant from using an alternative or additional layoff
vendor, unless it has

notified the Exchange of the change.\16\ The Exchange confirms in its
rule that the provisions in proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4 would not
replace any record retention obligations to which the Exchange's
participants could be subject under the Act and rules thereunder.\17\
Finally, as an administrative matter, the Exchange also proposes to
delete CHX Article V, Rule 5, which applied to wires from the
Exchange's floor to its branch offices, since the Exchange represents
that it no longer maintains branch offices and has no purpose for
keeping this rule in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .04.
    \16\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .05.
    \17\ See proposed CHX Article V, Rule 4, Interpretation and
Policy .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\18\ In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which requires that
the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange typically obtains information about off-floor activity
of its participants from the Regional Exchange Data Summary (``REDS'')
data provided by the Securities Industry Automation Corporation.
However, according to the Exchange, the REDS data did not attribute
layoff activity to the particular CHX member who transmitted a layoff
order. Instead, Exchange market regulation analysts had to manually
review the Exchange's exception reports and other trading records in
order to conduct surveillance specific to individual CHX
participants.\20\ CHX has stated that the recording of layoff order
information directly from the systems providers will eliminate this
manual step, and that the proposal will provide it with necessary
layoff service information to enhance its surveillance system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Letter from David C. Whitcomb, Jr., Senior Vice
President and Chief Regulatory Officer, CHX, to Sharon Lawson,
Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission,
dated March 16, 2005 (discussing, in general, how the Exchange plans
to utilize the data to be gathered pursuant to the proposed rule
change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed rule change is intended to address
recommendations made in the Exchange's 2003 settlement agreement with
the Commission.\21\ In the settlement agreement, the Commission cited
the Exchange's failure ``to detect and prevent a large number of
trading rule violations, in part, because [the Exchange] did not have
adequate surveillance systems to detect possible violations.'' \22\ In
addition, the Commission found that the CHX had ``relied on ineffective
and often flawed manual processes to detect violations.'' \23\ The
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed obligations on its
participants to use only layoff services that can provide specific,
designated order information to the CHX is consistent with the
recommendations made in the Exchange's settlement agreement with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48566 (September
30, 2003) (Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-11282), available
at: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-48566.htm.

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change, as amended, will provide the Exchange with a more automated
process for receiving a comprehensive set of audit trail data on CHX
participants' trading activity conducted through layoff systems.\24\
The proposal will permit the Exchange to more efficiently collect
information on the off-floor activity of CHX participants, thereby
allowing the Exchange to integrate the audit trail data into its
surveillance systems. Increased automation with respect to the receipt
of layoff order details will, in turn, allow the Exchange to perform
more automated surveillance and generate better surveillance reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange represents that layoff systems are private
order routing networks which provide connectivity and order
management functionality for orders sent to the primary exchanges in
the listed markets. See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal will improve
the Exchange's ability to review its members' order-handling activities
and to determine their compliance with applicable trading rules. For
example, the Exchange's receipt of layoff vendor data will enhance the
Exchange's review of specialists' compliance with the limit order
display rule,\25\ short sale position marking and tick text
requirements,\26\ best execution,\27\ and trading ahead
prohibitions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 17 CFR 240.11Ac1-4 and CHX Article XX, Rule 7.05.
    \26\ See 17 CFR 240.10a-1.
    \27\ See CHX Article XX, Rule 37.
    \28\ See CHX Article XXX, Rules 2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, the Commission finds the Exchange's efforts,
through the proposed rule change, to enhance its surveillance of these
areas with respect to layoff orders to be consistent with
recommendations made in the Exchange's settlement agreement with the
Commission.\29\ Further, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal to enhance surveillance for compliance with CHX's rules, the
Act and the rules thereunder is consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.\31\ The
Commission emphasizes that the detailed information required to be
obtained relating to the layoff service will not replace any record
retention obligations already required of CHX participants under the
Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 21.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ As an additional matter, the Commission believes that the
proposal to delete CHX Article V, Rule 5 that applied to wires from
the Exchange's floor to its branch offices is reasonable since the
Exchange represents that it no longer maintains branch offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the Commission believes that approving the proposal
will help to strengthen the Exchange's surveillance program by
providing the Exchange with data necessary to appropriately conduct
more thorough and efficient surveillance of its participants' trading
activities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In a related proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to
amend its rules to require its on-floor participants to maintain
specific details about orders originating on or off the floor of the
Exchange for execution on the Exchange, as well as orders issued
from the floor of the Exchange to any other market or trading venue.
See SR-CHX-2004-38, available at: http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm
.

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

Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 4

    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 4 to
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment
is published for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.\33\ Amendment No. 4 revises the proposed
implementation date of the proposed rule change to October 31, 2005 for
NASDAQ/NM securities, and maintains the implementation date for Dual
Trading System issues at September 30, 2005. The Commission

believes that the proposed extension of the compliance date for NASDAQ/
NM securities to October 31, 2005 is reasonable in order to allow CHX
participants and their layoff vendors additional time to implement
system changes to comply with the proposal, while, at the same time,
allows the Exchange to implement the proposal immediately, as of
September 30, 2005, for Dual Trading System issues without further
delay. Accordingly, the Commission believes that accelerated approval
of Amendment No. 4 is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 4
to 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-CHX-2004-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2004-25. 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 the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CHX-2004-25 and should be submitted on or before October
27, 2005.

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2004-25) and Amendment
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereto are approved, and that Amendment No. 4 thereto
is hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5468 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9840-9841]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1 4751-001]

Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 22, 2016, Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Fresno Dam Site Water Power Project (Fresno Dam Project or project) to
be located in Hill County, Montana near the town of Kremlin at the
existing Bureau of Reclamation Fresno Dam located on the Milk River.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would utilize the existing outlet structure on
Fresno Dam. The proposed project would consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 48-inch-diameter, 100-foot-long bifurcated penstock
leading from the existing outlet works; (2) a powerhouse containing two
turbines/generating units with a combined installed capacity of 1.348
megawatts; (3) a tailrace discharging flows into the existing dam
spillway; (4) a transformer in a 25-square-foot switchyard; (5) an
approximately 1-mile-long, 12.74-kilovolt overhead transmission line
connecting to existing Hill County Electric and Northwest Electric
transmission systems; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 4,700 megawatt-hours
    Applicant Contact: Justin D. Ahmann, Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC,
111 Legend Trail, Kalispell, MT 59901.
    FERC Contact: Ryan Hansen, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 Days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments,

motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14751-001.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14751) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04161 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30704-30706]
[DOCID:fr04jn07-3]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0003, EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0005-200620c; FRL-8321-
4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South
Carolina: Revisions to State Implementation Plan; Clarification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is clarifying its approval of revisions to the South
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 2006. EPA's action modified South Carolina's
federally approved Regulation 61-62.1 ``Definitions and General
Requirements,'' by revising the definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC). This action merely clarifies the list of compounds
which are excluded from the definition of VOC.

DATES: This action is effective June 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0005. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory

Development Section, 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 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning 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 (404)
562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Through a direct final rulemaking, published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 2006, (71 FR 70880), EPA approved revisions to
the South Carolina SIP. These revisions were submitted on October 24,
2005, by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC). The purpose of EPA's action was to revise the
definition of VOC. Specifically, that SIP revision updated the
nomenclature for compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in SC
Regulation 61-62.1, to be consistent with the Federal rule published on
November 29, 2004, (69 FR 69298). It also added four compounds to the
list of those excluded from the definition of VOC, on the basis that
they make a negligible contribution to ozone formation, also consistent
with the Federal rule. Additionally, the revision added the compound t-
butyl acetate (TBAC or TBAc) to the list of compounds excluded from the
definition of VOC for purposes of emissions limitations or VOC content
requirements. EPA is clarifying the action taken on December 7, 2006,
due to feedback that the rulemaking was not clear in its intent.

II. EPA's Action

    The purpose of this action is only to clarify a previous action and
no substantial changes are being made. Below is the list of the
compounds presented in the December 7, 2006, rulemaking, which updates
the nomenclature for the following compounds excluded from the
definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP:
     (CF3)
2CFCF2OC2H5 to (2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-(1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane)
     CFC-113 (1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane)
     CFC-114 (1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane)
     HCFC-123 (1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane)
     HCFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane)
     HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane)
     HCFC-142b (1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane)
     HFE-7100 (1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane) or
(C4F9OCH3)

     HFE-7200 (1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane) or
(C4F9OC2H5)
     Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
     Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); and
perfluorocarbon compounds that fall into these classes:
    (i) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
    (ii) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
    (iii) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers
with no unsaturations;
    (iv) sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and
with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.

Additionally, the 2006 action added the following five compounds to the
list of those excluded from the definition of VOC:

     HFE-7000 (1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane) or
(n-C3F7OCH3)
     HFE-7500 (3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane
     HFC-227ea (1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane)
     Methyl formate (HCOOCH3)
     The following compound(s) are defined as VOC only for
purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical
dispersion modeling and inventory requirements that apply to VOC and
shall be uniquely identified in emission reports; they are not,
however, defined as VOC for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or
VOC content requirements: T-butyl acetate (TBAC or TBAc).
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are
unnecessary because today's action to provide clarification of those
compounds exempted from the definition of VOC, has no substantive
impact on EPA's December 7, 2006, approval. The clarification for the
list of compounds exempted from the definition of VOC, in EPA's direct
final rule published on December 7, 2006, makes no substantive
difference to EPA's analysis as set out in that rule. In addition, EPA
can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in
being notified of this clarification or in having the opportunity to
comment on the clarification prior to this action being finalized,
since this clarification action does not change EPA's analysis for the
update to the nomenclature for those compounds excluded from the
definition of VOC, and the addition of five compounds to the list of
those excluded from the definition of VOC.
    EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3)
for this clarification to become effective on the date of publication
of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA
section 553(d)(3), is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule
takes effect. Rather, today's rule simply clarifies EPA's December 7,
2006, rulemaking. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA
section 553(d)(3), for this clarification to become effective on the
date of publication of this action.

III. 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 clarifies the nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded
from the definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in
EPA's December 7, 2006, rulemaking, 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
clarifies the nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded from the
definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in EPA's
December 7, 2006, rulemaking, notice 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 clarifies the
nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded from the definition of
VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in EPA's December 7, 2006,
rulemaking, 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 is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP 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 SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the 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, U.S.C. section 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 August 3, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 22, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E7-10696 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P