[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31464-31471]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12326]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0196, 0197, 0198, 0200,
0201, 0202, 0203, 0204 and 0207; FRL-9814-9]

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 58

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add nine sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL and proposes to change the name of an NPL
site.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                   City/county, state                      Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locust Avenue (a.k.a. B.F. Goodrich).  Rialto, CA..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574.
Beck's Lake..........................  South Bend, IN..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0196.
Garden City Ground Water Plume.......  Garden City, IN.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0197.
Keystone Corridor Ground Water         Indianapolis, IN........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0198.
 Contamination.
Smurfit-Stone Mill...................  Missoula, MT............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0200.

Cristex Drum.........................  Oxford, NC..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0201.
Hemphill Road TCE....................  Gastonia, NC............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0202.
Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)......  Farmington, NH..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0203.
Wilcox Oil Company...................  Creek County, OK........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0204.
Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach      Neah Bay, WA............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0207.
 Dump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mailcode 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). The EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system; that means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and
further details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/
Public Comment,'' of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the
headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Proposed Site Name Change
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866
review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this proposed rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR
part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial
threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS
evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and
air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state.
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. .
. .'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant

release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within
an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference
to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with
the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the
installation or plant are not necessarily the ``boundaries'' of the
site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the
area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where
that contamination has come to be located, or from where that
contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic
vitality. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf. The EPA is
improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal
input is solicited. The EPA will be using the Web and where appropriate
more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the
concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2)
requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if
placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent
nature of the process by informing states that information on their
responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, will be added to the
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
Dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the Regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES
section above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., EPA West,
Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a
visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the relevant Regional Dockets is as
follows:

 Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1417.
 Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
 Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-5364.
 Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8862.
 Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
 Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
 Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North
5th Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
 Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-
6484.
 Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA,
75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/
972-3219.
 Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to either copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send
them out electronically.
    You may use the Docket at www.regulations.gov to access documents
in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES
section above). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are
outlined below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the Headquarters
Docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the Regional
Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery.
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are
sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public

viewing in the electronic public Docket at www.regulations.gov as the
EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the
public Dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
Docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of this proposed rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add nine sites to
the NPL, all in the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above.
    The sites are presented in the table below.

                        General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State                Site name                   City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN               Beck's Lake................  South Bend.
IN               Garden City Ground Water     Garden City.
                  Plume.
IN               Keystone Corridor Ground     Indianapolis.
                  Water Contamination.
MT               Smurfit-Stone Mill.........  Missoula.
NC               Cristex Drum...............  Oxford.
NC               Hemphill Road TCE..........  Gastonia.
NH               Collins & Aikman Plant       Farmington.
                  (Former).
OK               Wilcox Oil Company.........  Creek County.
WA               Makah Reservation Warmhouse  Neah Bay.
                  Beach Dump.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Site Name Change

    The EPA is proposing to change the name of the B.F. Goodrich site
in Rialto, California, which was added to the NPL on September 23, 2009
(74 FR 48412). The EPA is proposing to change the name to Locust Avenue
at the request of a settling work party. With the limited purpose of
the NPL, as stated in RSR Corp. v. EPA, 102 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1997),
when naming a site, EPA may choose a name that reflects ``the location
or nature of the problems at a site and that are readily and easily
associated with the site by the general public.'' The proposed name
informs the public of the geographic location of the site. Comments may
be submitted to docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety or state, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final
rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule
does not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part
9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has the EPA complied with the regulatory flexibility act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before the EPA promulgates a rule
where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and advising small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
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, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to states or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    The EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to state governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA
therefore consulted with state officials and/or representatives of
state governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit
them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All
sites included in this proposed rule were referred to the EPA by states
for listing. For all sites in this rule, the EPA received letters of
support either from the governor or a state official who was delegated
the authority by the governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires the

EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement
of Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further,
the agency has concluded that this rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use,
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply,
distribution or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to
this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
state, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: May 17, 2013.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2013-12326 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21911-21912]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-722-000.

    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Agreements Update
(Foundation) to be effective 5/8/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5333.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-723-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Filing--April 2014--Tenaska 9840 Att A
to be effective 4/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/7/14.
    Accession Number: 20140407-5346.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-724-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company Operational Purchases
and Sales of Gas Report.
    Filed Date: 4/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140408-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-725-000.
    Applicants: Bison Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Bison Pipeline LLC Operational Purchases and Sales of
Gas Report.
    Filed Date: 4/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140408-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-726-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Waiver and Extensions of El Paso Natural
Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20140408-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-727-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Remove Messenger Agreement to be effective 5/10/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/9/14.
    Accession Number: 20140409-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/14.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08868 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 27 (Thursday, February 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9112-9116]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02777]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91068; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2021-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Rule 971.2NY Regarding Its Complex Customer Best Execution Auction

February 5, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on January 27, 2021, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 modify Rule 971.2NY regarding its Complex
Customer Best Execution (``CUBE'') auction to provide optional all-or-
none functionality for larger-sized orders and to make conforming
changes to Rule 971.1NY to clarify existing functionality of the
Single-Leg AON CUBE functionality. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to expand its electronic crossing mechanism--
the CUBE Auction, to provide optional all-or-none (``AON'') \4\
functionality for ATP Holders to execute larger-sized orders (i.e., at
least 500 contracts on the smallest leg) in the Complex CUBE Auction
and to make conforming changes to Rule 971.1NY to clarify existing
functionality of the Single-Leg AON CUBE functionality.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An All-or-None Order or AON Order is a ``Market or Limit
Order that is to be executed on the Exchange in its entirety or not
at all.'' See Rule 900.3NY(d)(4).
    \5\ See proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY; proposed
Commentary .05 to Rule 971.1NY. Capitalized terms have the same
meaning as the defined terms in Rules 971.1NY and 971.2NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would be consistent with the recently
approved AON CUBE Order functionality for the Single-Leg CUBE
Auction.\6\ In this regard, the Exchange seeks to expand this
functionality to the Complex CUBE Auction, which functionality is also
consistent with similar price-improvement mechanisms for larger-sized
complex orders already available on other options exchanges.\7\ As
such,

this is a filing that will allow the Exchange to compete with other
options exchanges for such larger-sized Complex Orders which would in
turn benefit market participants already familiar with such price-
improvement mechanisms in that it would provide another venue to trade
their larger-sized orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Commentary .05 to Rule 971.1NY; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 90584 (December 7, 2020), 85 FR 80196
(December 11, 2020) (SR-NYSEAmer-2020-60) (order approving auction
functionality for Single-Leg AON CUBE Orders of at least 500
contracts). As proposed, AON Complex CUBE Orders would be processed
and executed in the Complex CUBE Auction in a similar manner as
Single-Leg AON CUBE Orders are processed and executed in the Single-
Leg CUBE Auction--the differences for Complex relating primarily to
the underlying differences between simple and complex order
processing and execution (i.e., auction pricing and allocation).
    \7\ See, e.g., Nasdaq ISE LLC (``ISE''), Options 3, Section
11(e) (setting forth its Complex Solicited Order Mechanism which
allows an agency complex order to execute in full against the
solicited complex order--both of which are designated as AON--at the
proposed execution net price so long as, at the time of execution
such price is not inferior to interest in the ISE leg markets or
ISE's complex order book and there are no ISE Priority Customers
equal to the net execution price. If there is Priority Customer
interest at the proposed execution price and there is sufficient
size in the aggregate (i.e., Customer interest plus any other
quotes, orders, and responses) to fill the agency complex order,
such agency order will trade first with the Priority Customer,
followed by other interest and the solicited order is canceled. If,
however, in such a scenario, there is insufficient size of the
Priority Customer and aggregated interest to fill the agency order,
both the agency complex order and solicited order are canceled). See
also Cboe Options Rule 5.40 (Complex Solicitation Auction
Mechanism).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complex CUBE Auction operates seamlessly with the Consolidated
Book--while still affording Complex CUBE Orders an opportunity to
receive price improvement.\8\ In particular, the Exchange utilizes the
concept of a CUBE BBO, which requires price improvement over resting
interest to initiate a Complex CUBE Auction.\9\ Upon entry of a Complex
CUBE Order in the System, the CUBE BBO is determined to be the more
aggressive of (i) the Complex BBO improved by $0.01, or (ii) the
Derived BBO improved by: $0.01 multiplied by the smallest leg of the
complex order strategy.\10\ A Complex CUBE Auction begins with an
``initiating price,'' which for a Complex CUBE Order is the less
aggressive of the net debit/credit price of such order or the price
that locks the contra-side CUBE BBO and the ``range of permissible
executions'' of a Complex CUBE Order is all prices equal to or between
the initiating price and the same-side CUBE BBO.\11\ As proposed, the
initiation of, and the range of permissible executions for, an AON
Complex CUBE Order would align with the protections afforded a standard
(non-AON) Complex CUBE Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 900.2NY(14) (defining Consolidated Book (or
``Book'') and providing that all quotes and orders ``that are
entered into the Book will be ranked and maintained in accordance
with the rules of priority as provided in Rule 964NY''). Rule 964NY
(Display, Priority and Order Allocation--Trading Systems) dictates
the priority of quotes and orders. The Exchange has integrated the
Complex CUBE Auction into the Complex Matching Engine (or CME),
which ensures that the Complex CUBE Auction respects the priority of
interest in the Consolidated Book. See Rule 971.2NY(a).
    \9\ See generally Rule 971.2NY and Commentary .02 (definitions).
See also Rule 900.2NY(7)(b),(c) (defining Complex BBO and Derived
BBO). The ``same-side CUBE BBO'' and ``contra-side CUBE BBO'' refer
to the CUBE BBO on the same or opposite side of the market as the
Complex CUBE Order, respectively. See Rule 971.2NY(a)(2).
    \10\ See Rule 971.2NY(a)(2). A complex order strategy is entered
with the ratio expressed in the fewest number of contracts for each
leg of the ratio. For a complex order strategy with a ratio of 2, 3,
and 6 contracts per leg, the $0.01 figure would be multiplied by 2
contracts, which represents the smallest leg. To calculate the CUBE
BBO for this strategy, the Derived BBO would need to be priced
improved by $0.02.
    \11\ See Rule 971.2NY(a)(2)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to expand the current Complex CUBE Auction
functionality by providing an additional (optional) method for market
participants to effect larger-sized orders in the Complex CUBE Auction
would likewise operate seamlessly with the Consolidated Book. The
Exchange also believes this proposal would encourage ATP Holders to
compete vigorously to provide the opportunity for price improvement for
larger-sized orders in a competitive auction process, which may lead to
enhanced liquidity and tighter markets.
Proposed AON Complex CUBE Functionality \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See generally Rule 971.2NY (for detailed description of
operation of Complex CUBE Auction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY to
provide that a Complex CUBE Order that has at least 500 contracts on
the smallest leg would execute in full at the single stop price against
the Complex Contra Order, except under specified circumstances (the
``AON Complex CUBE Order'').\13\ As further proposed, a Complex Contra
Order would not be permitted to guarantee an AON Complex CUBE Order for
auto-match limit, which feature is otherwise available in a Complex
CUBE Auction.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See also proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY. See Rule
971.2NY(b)(1)(A) (setting forth parameters for single stop price).
An AON Complex CUBE Order would be rejected for the same reasons as
a Complex CUBE Order (see Rule 971.2NY(b)(2)-(5)).
    \14\ See also proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY. See also
Rule 971.2NY(b)(1)(B) (regarding parameters for auto-match limit
price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE BBO for a proposed AON Complex CUBE Order would be
determined in the same manner as for a standard Complex CUBE Order.\15\
An AON Complex CUBE Order Auction would also be subject to the same
early end events as a Complex CUBE Order.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ An AON Complex CUBE Order and its paired Complex Contra
Order would be rejected if it failed to meet the pricing parameters.
See Rule 971.2NY(b) (regarding auction eligibility requirements).
    \16\ See Rule 971.2NY(c)(3) (setting forth the type of interest
that causes the early end to a Complex CUBE Auction). In particular,
to respect priority of the leg markets, the AON Complex CUBE Auction
would end early if during the Auction the Exchange receives
``[i]nterest in the leg market that causes the contra-side CUBE BBO
to be better than the stop price or auto-match limit price.'' See
Rule 971.2NY(c)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an AON Complex CUBE Order would execute in full with
the Complex Contra Order at the single stop price even if there is non-
Customer interest priced better than the stop price that, either on its
own or when aggregated with other better-priced non-Customer RFR
Responses, is insufficient to satisfy the full quantity of the AON
Complex CUBE Order.\17\ In addition, as proposed, an AON Complex CUBE
Order would not execute with the Complex Contra Order if the entire AON
Complex CUBE Order can be satisfied in full by certain eligible contra-
side interest. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that paragraph (b)
to Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY would provide that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Commentary .04(a) to Rule 971.2NY. The
Exchange also proposes to modify Commentary .05 to Rule 971.1NY to
clarify the handling of AON CUBE Orders in a Single-Leg CUBE
Auction--including by relocating certain text to a new paragraph
(a), which would not alter existing functionality and mirrors the
handling of AON Complex CUBE Orders in a Complex CUBE Auction. See
proposed Commentary .05(a) to Rule 971.1NY (providing that ``[a]n
AON CUBE Order to buy (sell) will execute in full with the Contra
Order at the single stop price even if there is non-Customer
interest priced higher (lower) than the stop price that, either on
its own or when aggregated with other non-Customer RFR Responses at
the stop price or better, is insufficient to satisfy the full
quantity of the AON CUBE Order''). In addition, the Exchange
proposes to make a non-substantive change to remove the now
extraneous text ``provided that'' and to re-number existing
paragraphs (a) and (b) to new paragraphs (b) and (c), which makes
the Rule easier to navigate and would align with the AON Complex
CUBE rule. See proposed Commentary .05(b), (c) to Rule 971.1NY.

    (b) The Complex Contra Order will not receive any allocation and
will be cancelled (i) if RFR Responses that are priced better than
the stop price can satisfy the full quantity of the AON Complex CUBE
Order or (ii) there is contra-side Customer interest at the stop
price or better that on its own, or when aggregated with RFR
Responses equal to or priced better than the stop price, can satisfy
the full quantity of the AON Complex CUBE Order. In either such
case, the RFR Responses will be allocated as provided for in
paragraphs (c)(4)(A) and (c)(4)(B)(i) of this Rule, as
applicable.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Commentary .04(b) to Rule 971.2NY. The
Exchange also proposes to modify (new) paragraph (b) to Commentary
.05 to Rule 971.1NY regarding the Single-Leg CUBE Auction to make
clear that Customer interest ``at the stop price or better'' may
prevent the Contra Order from executing, which does not alter
existing functionality and mirrors the handling of AON Complex CUBE
Orders in a Complex CUBE Auction. See proposed Commentary .05(b) to
Rule 971.1NY (emphasis added). In addition, the Exchange proposes to
make a non-substantive change to capitalize the first sentence of
this paragraph, which makes the Rule easier to navigate and would
align with the AON Complex CUBE rule. See id.

    Thus, if there is price-improving contra-side interest that can
satisfy the AON condition of the Auction, the AON

Complex CUBE Order would execute in full against those price-improving
RFR Responses and the Complex Contra Order would cancel. Or, absent
such price-improving interest, if there is contra-side Customer
interest equal to the stop price or better that on its own, or when
combined with equal or better-priced RFR Responses, can satisfy the AON
condition of the Auction, the AON Complex CUBE Order would execute in
full against such interest and the Complex Contra Order would cancel.
Under either scenario, the AON Complex CUBE Order would be allocated
against contra-side interest at the best price(s) pursuant to the
Exchange's priority rules.\19\ This proposal is also consistent with
the AON nature of similar mechanisms on other options exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also Rule 971.2NY (c)(4)(A) (providing Customer
interest first priority to trade with the Complex CUBE Order, at
each price level, pursuant to the size pro rata algorithm set forth
in Rule 964NY(b)(3)) and (c)(4)(B)(i)(a) (providing RFR Responses
priced better than the stop price, beginning with the most
aggressive price within the range of permissible executions,
pursuant to the size pro rata algorithm set forth in Rule
964NY(b)(3) at each price point).
    \20\ See, e.g., supra note 7 (regarding Nasdaq ISE's Complex
Solicited Order Mechanism and Cboe's Complex Solicitation Auction
Mechanism, both of which are mechanisms for larger-sized paired
complex orders designated as AON).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further proposed, both the AON CUBE Order and Contra Order would
be cancelled, i.e., the Auction would be cancelled, if there is contra-
side Customer interest at the stop price and such interest on its own
or when combined with RFR Responses (at the stop price or better) is
insufficient to satisfy the entire AON Complex CUBE Order. To effect
this, the Exchange proposes that paragraph (b) [sic] to Commentary .04
to Rule 971.2NY would provide that:

    (c) The AON Complex CUBE Order and Complex Contra Order will
both be cancelled if there is contra-side Customer interest at the
stop price or better and such interest, either on its own or when
aggregated with RFR Responses equal to or priced better than the
stop price is insufficient to satisfy the full quantity of the AON
Complex CUBE Order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Commentary .04(c) to Rule 971.2NY. The
Exchange also proposes to modify (new) paragraph (c) to Commentary
.05 to Rule 971.1NY regarding the Single-Leg CUBE Auction to make
clear that Customer interest ``at the stop price or better'' would
result in cancellation of the AON CUBE Order and the Contra Order,
which would mirror the AON Complex CUBE functionality. See proposed
Commentary .05(c) to Rule 971.1NY (emphasis added). In addition, the
Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive change to capitalize the
first sentence of this paragraph, which makes the Rule easier to
navigate and would align with the AON Complex CUBE rule. See id.

    Thus, as proposed, if there is contra-side Customer interest at the
stop price, but there is not enough size (considering the Customer
interest and all RFR Responses at the stop price or better) to satisfy
the entire AON Complex CUBE Order, then both the AON Complex CUBE Order
and the Contra Complex Order would be cancelled. The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with the terms of how AONs function
generally without violating the Exchange's general priority rules.\22\
With respect to allocation, the Exchange notes that the proposed
functionality differs from the allocation of a standard Complex CUBE
Order in that the Complex Contra Order is not guaranteed a minimum
allocation at the stop price. Instead, given the AON nature of the
functionality, the Complex Contra Order either trades with the entire
AON Complex CUBE Order or not at all.\23\ This proposal is also
consistent with the AON nature of similar mechanisms on other options
exchanges.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 980NY(b) (``Priority of Electronic Complex Orders
in the Consolidated Book''). See also Rule 971.2NY (regarding
processing of Complex CUBE Orders per Rule 980NY).
    \23\ See Rule 971.2NY(c)(4)(B)(i)(b) (providing that, ``[a]t the
stop price, if there is sufficient size of the Complex CUBE Order
still available after executing at prices better than the stop price
or against Customer interest, the Complex Contra Order will receive
an allocation of the greater of 40% of the original Complex CUBE
Order size or one contract (or the greater of 50% of the original
Complex CUBE Order size or one contract if there is only one RFR
Response)'').
    \24\ See e.g., supra note 7 (regarding Nasdaq ISE's Complex
Solicited Order Mechanism and Cboe's Complex Solicitation Auction
Mechanism, both of which are mechanisms for larger-sized paired
complex orders designated as AON).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of differences to the minimum size and
allocation described in proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY, an AON
Complex CUBE auction would be subject to all of the provisions of Rule
971.2NY.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY. The Exchange
also proposes to modify the text in the last paragraph of Commentary
.05 to Rule 971.1NY regarding the Single-Leg CUBE Auction to clarify
that ``[e]xcept as provided in this Commentary .05, an AON CUBE
auction will be subject to all of the provisions of Rule 971.1NY,''
which makes the Rule easier to navigate and would align with the AON
Complex CUBE rule. See proposed Commentary .05 to Rule 971.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed paragraph (d) to Commentary .04 to Rule 971.2NY
would provide that prior to entering an agency order (i.e., Complex
CUBE Order) on behalf of a Customer into the Complex CUBE Auction as an
AON Complex CUBE Order, Initiating Participants would be required to
deliver to the Customer a written notification informing the Customer
that such order may be executed using the Complex CUBE Auction, which
notification would disclose the terms and conditions of Commentary .04
to Rule 971.2NY and be in a form approved by the Exchange.\26\ This
notification requirement is consistent with the rules of other options
exchanges that offer an AON paired order auction mechanism for complex
orders.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Commentary .04(d) to Rule 971.2NY. The
Exchange also proposes to add a paragraph (d) to Commentary .05 to
Rule 971.1NY regarding the Single-Leg CUBE Auction to adopt a notice
provision identical to that being proposed for the AON Complex CUBE
functionality, which clarifies the obligations of ATP Holders to
their customers and does not alter existing functionality. See
proposed Commentary .05(d) to Rule 971.1NY.
    \27\ See, e.g., supra note 7, Nasdaq ISE, Options 3, Section
11(e)(5) and Cboe Options Rule 5.40, Interpretations and Policies
.01 (both setting forth substantially similar notice requirements
for agency orders handled on behalf of customers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following the approval of this proposed rule change. The Exchange has
already notified ATP Holders about the planned implementation of AON
Complex CUBE functionality, which has provided them advance time to
prepare their systems for participation in the AON Complex CUBE Auction
once it becomes available.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Trader Update, October 6, 2020, NYSE American Options:
AON CUBE Orders Available for Testing, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000319620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
    The proposed optional all-or-none functionality for larger-sized
orders, which is consistent with Exchange's recently approved Single-
Leg AON CUBE Order functionality,\29\ is intended to benefit investors,
because it is designed to provide investors seeking to execute larger-
sized option orders in the Complex CUBE Auction with greater certainty
regarding the price at which the order would be executed. In this
regard, the Exchange seeks to expand this functionality to the Complex
CUBE Auction, which functionality is also consistent with similar
price-improvement mechanisms for larger-

sized complex orders already available on other options exchanges. As
such, this is a filing that will allow the Exchange to compete with
other options exchanges for such larger-sized Complex Orders and would
benefit market participants who are already familiar with such price-
improvement mechanisms.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 6 (regarding recent approval of Commentary
.05 to Rule 971.1NY).
    \30\ See supra note 7 (regarding Nasdaq ISE's Complex Solicited
Order Mechanism and Cboe's Complex Solicitation Auction Mechanism,
both of which are mechanisms for larger-sized paired complex orders
designated as AON).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system because it would
provide ATP Holders that locate liquidity for their customers' larger-
sized orders a facility in which to execute those orders at the agreed-
upon price, while also providing an opportunity for such orders to be
price improved. In addition, ATP Holders that opt to utilize this
proposed functionality would have an equal opportunity to initiate
their own or to respond with their best prices to other AON CUBE
Auctions. The Exchange believes the proposed functionality would
promote and foster competition and provide more options contracts with
the opportunity for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed functionality would provide
more efficient transactions, reduce execution risk to ATP Holders, and
afford greater execution opportunities for larger-sized orders. The
proposed functionality would operate within the Complex CUBE (including
by integrating Complex CUBE into the Complex Matching Engine, per Rule
971.2NY(a)) such that the Exchange is able to assure that the proposed
functionality would continue to respect the priority of interest, in
particular Customer interest. The proposal ensures that the AON Complex
CUBE Order is exposed to ATP Holders for the possibility of price
improvement and that Customer orders on the Exchange are protected. As
noted above, at the conclusion of an AON Complex CUBE Auction, the AON
Complex CUBE Order would be executed in full (against the Complex
Contra Order or eligible contra-side auction interest) or would be
cancelled, together with the Complex Contra Order.
    Further, the proposed functionality is reasonable and promotes a
fair and orderly market and national market system, because it is
substantially similar to the price- improvement mechanisms for larger-
sized orders available on other options exchanges. The Exchange
believes this proposal may lead to an increase in Exchange volume and
should allow the Exchange to better compete against other markets that
already offer an all-or-none electronic solicitation mechanism for
larger-sized orders. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
allow the Exchange to better compete for solicited transactions, while
providing an opportunity for price improvement on the larger-sized
orders. In addition, the proposed functionality should promote and
foster competition and provide more options contracts with the
opportunity for price improvement, which should benefit market
participants.
    The proposed clarifications to the Single-Leg CUBE Auction Rule
would protect investors and the public interest because the proposed
changes add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange
rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra notes 17, 18, 21 and 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, consistent with other options exchanges offering similar
price- improvement auctions, the proposed rule change would require ATP
Holders to provide customers with the terms and conditions of agency
orders that might be submitted as AON Complex CUBE Orders on their
behalf.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options 3, Section 11(e)(5) and Cboe
Options Rule 5.40, Interpretations and Policies .01 (both setting
forth substantially similar notice requirements for agency orders
handled on behalf of customers). See supra note 26 (regarding the
addition of a notice provisions to the Single-Leg CUBE auction
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change would impose any burden on intramarket
competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the same manner
to all orders submitted as AON Complex Orders to the Complex CUBE
Auction. The Exchange recently received rule approval for AON CUBE
Order functionality in the Single-Leg CUBE Auction, which operates in a
substantially similar manner to the complex functionality, accounting
for differing priority and allocation rules.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 6 (regarding recent approval of Commentary
.05 to Rule 971.1NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing the functionality for Complex Orders as
an optional market enhancement that, if utilized, should increase
competition for ATP Holders seeking to execute such larger-sized orders
in an electronic auction mechanism. ATP Holders that opt to utilize
this proposed functionality would have an equal opportunity to initiate
their own or to respond with their best prices to other AON CUBE
Auctions. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges offer
electronic auction mechanisms for larger-sized orders on an AON basis.
The Exchange believes the proposed functionality would provide ATP
Holders with a greater choice of exchanges from which to execute such
orders. The proposal is structured to offer the same enhancement to all
market participants and would not impose an intra-market competitive
burden on any participant. The price-improvement functionality for the
AON Complex CUBE Auction is designed to promote competition for ATP
Holders to compete amongst each other by responding with not only their
best price, but also the full size for a particular auction.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues who offer similar functionality. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote,
competition. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is
necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to
establish more uniform price-improvement auction rules on the various
options exchanges. The proposed functionality may lead to an increase
in Exchange volume and should allow the Exchange to better compete
against other markets that already offer similar price-improvement
mechanisms for larger-sized orders. The Exchange anticipates that this
proposal will create new opportunities for the Exchange to attract new
business and compete on equal footing with those options exchanges that
offer auction AON functionality for larger-sized Complex Orders and for
this reason the proposal does not create an undue burden on intermarket
competition. By contrast, not having the proposed functionality places
the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis other
exchanges that offer similar price-improvement mechanisms for larger-
sized Complex Orders.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \34\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\35\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \36\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\37\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
waiver of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to deploy the
new functionality immediately, which would help to ease the potential
disruption to floor trading in the event that the Exchange is required
to temporarily close its trading floor for reasons related to COVID-
19.\38\ The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed
functionality without delay in the event that the Exchange must
temporarily close its trading floor. As discussed above, the proposed
AON complex CUBE auction is substantially similar to the paired
solicited complex order auctions in place on other options exchanges
and does not raise new or novel regulatory issues.\39\ In addition, the
proposed changes to the single-leg AON CUBE provisions in Rule 971.1NY
should help to avoid confusion by assuring that the descriptions of the
single-leg and the complex AON CUBE auctions remain consistent.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \38\ The Exchange notes that it temporarily closed its trading
floor for several months in 2020 and for the last week of December
2020 for reasons related to COVID-19. See Trader Update, December
24, 2020, NYSE American Options to Move Temporarily to All-
Electronic Trading on December 28, 2020, available here: https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000331853.
    \39\ See, e.g., note 7, supra.
    \40\ For purposed only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \41\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEAMER-2021-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-06. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-06, and should be
submitted on or before March 4, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02777 Filed 2-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53282-53283]
[DOCID:fr31au10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1881-064]

PPL Holtwood, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of License
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 24, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Land and Shoreline Management Plan.
    b. Project No. 1881-064.
    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2010.
    d. Applicant: PPL Holtwood, LLC (PPL).
    e. Name of Project: Holtwood Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Susquehanna River, in
Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Gary Petreski, PPL Holtwood, LLC, Two North
Ninth Street (GENPL6), Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101; telephone (610)
774-5996.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Hillary Berlin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: September 24, 2010.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-1881-064) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of the Filing: PPL, licensee for the Holtwood
Hydroelectric Project, filed a Land and Shoreline Management Plan for
the project. The plan is a comprehensive plan to manage the project's
lands and shoreline in a manner that is consistent with license
requirements and project purposes, and within the framework of
regional, state, and federal initiatives to preserve, protect, and
enhance the lower Susquehanna River Corridor and the Chesapeake Bay.
    l. Location of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies or directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21622 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P