[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53972-53973]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0164]

National Boating Safety Advisory Committee; Oct 2021
Teleconference

AGENCY:  U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) and
its subcommittees will meet via teleconference to discuss matters
relating to recreational boating safety. The meeting will be open to
the public.

DATES:
    Meeting: The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee will meet
by teleconference on Thursday, October 21, 2021 from 12:00 p.m. until
4:30 p.m., (Eastern Daylight Time). The teleconference may adjourn
early if the Committee has completed its business.
    Comments and supporting documentation: To ensure your comments are
received by Committee members before the teleconference, submit your
written comments no later than October 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference or to request special
accommodations, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on October 19, 2021,
to obtain the needed information. The number of teleconference lines
are limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the teleconference as time permits, but if you want
Committee members to review your comments before the teleconference,
please submit your comments no later than October 14, 2021. We are
particularly interested in comments on the issues in the ``Agenda''
section below. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email
the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document for alternate instructions. You must include the docket number
[USCG-2010-0164]. Comments received will be posted without alteration
at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. You may wish to view the Privacy and Security notice
available on the homepage of https://regulations.gov and DHS's
eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). If
you encounter technical difficulties with comment submission, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice.
    Docket Search: Documents mentioned in this notice as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following
that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign-up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Decker, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Boating Safety Advisory Committee, 2703
Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5, U.S.C. Appendix). The National
Boating Safety Advisory Committee was established on December 4, 2018,
by Sec.  601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192). That authority is codified in
46 U.S.C. 15105.

The Committee operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) in addition to the administrative
provisions for the National Maritime Transportation Advisory Committees
in 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Boating Safety Advisory Committee
provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland
Security on matters relating to recreational vessels and associated
equipment and on other safety matters related to recreational vessels.

Agenda

    The agenda for the National Boating Safety Advisory Committee
meeting is as follows:

Thursday, October 21, 2021

(1) Call to Order.
(2) Roll call and determination of quorum.
(3) Opening remarks.
(4) Swearing-in of new appointees.
(5) Election by Committee members of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
(6) Receipt and discussion of the following reports from the Office of
Auxiliary and Boating Safety:
    (a) Update on Resolutions.
    (b) Strategic Planning.
    (c) Boating Incident Reporting Project.
    (d) Recreational Boating Regulations Status Report.
    (e) Taskers, expectations/topics.
    (f) Analysis Projects.
    (g) 2020 Recreational Boating Annual Statistics.
    (h) Review of Non-profit Grant Products.
    (i) 2022 Areas of Interest.
(7) Public Comment Period.
(8) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(9) Adjournment of meeting.

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/nbsac no later than October 14, 2021. Alternatively, you may
contact Mr. Jeff Decker as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section
above.
    During the October 21, 2021 teleconference, a public comment period
will be held from approximately 2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Public comments
will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Please note that the public
comment periods will end following the last call for comments.
    Please contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, to register as a speaker.

Wayne R. Arguin, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-21158 Filed 9-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9841-9842]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3826]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63916; File No. SR-BATS-2011-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled ``Order Execution''

February 15, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 14, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' 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. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BATS Rule 11.13, entitled ``Order
Execution,'' to modify the description of the SLIM routing strategy
offered by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the
proposed rule change on February 25, 2011, or as soon thereafter as
practicable.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13, which describes its
order routing processes, to modify the description of the SLIM routing
strategy offered by the Exchange.
    Currently, various routing strategies are available through BATS,
including the SLIM routing strategy. As described in Rule
11.13(a)(3)(H), SLIM is a routing option under which an order will
check the System for available shares, will be routed to BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''),\4\ and then will be sent to destinations on
the System routing table. The Exchange currently allows a User \5\ to
designate whether an order routed through the TRIM routing strategy
should check the Exchange's order book before routing away. This
optional initial check of the Exchange's order book is not currently
available for SLIM, but rather SLIM routed orders always check the
Exchange's order book before routing away. The Exchange

proposes to modify the description of SLIM to provide Users with two
distinct SLIM routing options. The first SLIM routing option will be to
check the System for available shares and then route to destinations on
the System routing table. The second SLIM routing option will first
route to the Exchange's affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., return to the
Exchange and check the System for available shares, and then route to
destinations on the System routing table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BYX is a registered national securities exchange and
affiliate of the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
34-62716 (August 13, 2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2010) (order
approving application of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. for registration as a
national securities exchange). BYX commenced operations on October
15, 2010.
    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(cc), the term ``User'' means any
Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access
to the System pursuant to BATS Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
The proposed change to modify the SLIM routing strategy will provide
market participants with greater flexibility in routing orders
consistent with Regulation NMS without developing complicated order
routing strategies on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
BATS has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. BATS requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay in order to immediately
offer Exchange Users an additional option in use of the SLIM routing
strategy, and believes that proposed change to the SLIM routing
strategy will benefit market participants and their customers by
allowing them greater flexibility in their efforts to fill orders and
minimize trading costs. The Exchange also believes that a delay to the
implementation date would put the Exchange at a competitive
disadvantage to other markets that already offer a similar option. The
Commission believes that accelerating the 30-day operative delay \12\
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ For purposes 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2011-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-005 and should be
submitted on or before March 15, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3826 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/05/2008 08:36:11 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


www.erg.com
www.erg.com

MEMORANDUM

TO:	Tonisha Dawson, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD  -  EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE:	September 2018

SUBJECT:	Cost Impacts for the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
This regulatory action proposes amendments to the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The proposed amendments include:
          Eliminating the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption consistent with the United States Court of Appeals decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Eliminating the SSM exemption will remove the requirements and associated burden for SSM plans and periodic SSM reports. We estimate a one-time burden for reviewing requirements associated with this amendment, as discussed in section 2.0 of this memorandum.
          Requiring periodic performance testing for each air pollution control device used to comply with the PM, total hydrocarbon (THC), opacity, and visible emission standards. We estimate an associated cost for this proposed amendment, as discussed in section 3.0 of this memorandum.
          Adding an option to allow the use of manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop across the control device used to comply with the particulate matter (PM) standards. For this proposed amendment, we estimate cost savings as discussed in section 4.0 of this memorandum.
          Adding flexibility to allow owners and operators to use the performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM standards. For this proposed amendment, we estimate cost savings as discussed in section 4.0 of this memorandum.
          Requiring owners and operators to submit electronic copies of performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status reports. For these proposed amendments, we estimate no cost impacts. In other words, we assume the burden estimate for paper format submittal of these reports is an appropriate estimate for electronic submittal of these reports.
          Other technical corrections to improve consistency and clarity. For these proposed amendments, we estimate no cost impacts.
We estimate the following costs (in 2017$) over a 5-year period for the proposed amendments: $4,000 in 2019 associated with reviewing the proposed amendments and $138,800 in 2022 for 5-year periodic performance testing. We also estimate the following cost savings (in 2017$) over a 5-year period for the proposed amendments: $16,500 in 2021 associated with the proposed monitoring options in lieu of a performance test and $490,000 in 2023 associated with extending filter replacements by three months. To estimate costs and cost savings, we assume (i) a 5-year period for the analysis and (ii) that the rule becomes final in 2019. This remainder of this memorandum provides details on how these costs and cost savings were determined. For additional details on how the costs and cost savings are summarized over time, please see the memorandum entitled "Economic Impact Analysis for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP RTR Proposal" in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0662).
ONE-TIME COST FOR REVIEWING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
We estimated a one-time cost of about $500 per facility for reviewing the requirements associated with all proposed amendments described in section 1.0 of this memorandum. We assume this review will occur in 2019. This one-time cost is expected to result in a total industry-wide cost of $4,000 in 2017 dollars.
This cost assumes that, for each facility, it will require 4 technical hours (plus 0.2 managerial and 0.4 clerical hours) to review and understand the proposed amendments, at a labor rate of $112.98/hour for technical labor (and $149.35/hour for managerial and $54.81/hour for clerical labor).
COST FOR 5-YEAR PERIODIC PERFORMANCE TESTING
For each air pollution control device used to comply with the PM, THC, opacity, and/or visible emission standards, the EPA is proposing periodic performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.8691(e). Depending on the date of construction or reconstruction of each affected source, the EPA is proposing the first periodic performance test compliance date to be either 3 years after the final rule is promulgated, or no later than 60 months following the initial performance test. The EPA is also proposing subsequent periodic performance tests be conducted no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous periodic performance test. Because all facilities have already conducted their initial performance test, we estimate the cost of the first periodic performance tests to occur in the third year, or 2022, after the final rule is promulgated.
We estimated a total industry-wide cost of $138,800 in 2017 dollars over a 5-year period  for these proposed testing requirements. Appendix A provides details for this estimate.
COST SAVINGS DUE TO PROPOSED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL DEVICE USED TO COMPLY WITH THE PM STANDARDS
For control devices used to comply with the PM standards of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP, facilities are required to conduct a performance test to reestablish new pressure drop and temperature operating limits. However, the EPA is proposing to add an option at 40 CFR 63.8689(d) to allow the use of manufacturers' specifications to establish the maximum pressure drop across the control device used to comply with the PM standards. The EPA is also proposing to add a footnote to Table 2 to subpart LLLLL of part 63 of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP to allow owners and operators to use the performance test average inlet temperature and apply an operating margin of +20 percent to determine maximum inlet gas temperature of a control device used to comply with the PM standards.
These proposed monitoring requirements are projected to impact asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities as follows:
          Alleviate some need for a facility to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits (see section 4.1); and
          Allow facilities to extend filter replacement by three months (see section 4.2).
Cost Savings for Using the Proposed Monitoring Options In Lieu of Conducting a Performance Test to Reestablish New Temperature and Pressure Drop Operating Limits
The proposed monitoring options described in section 4.0 are estimated to alleviate some need for a facility to have to retest the PM control device for the sole purpose of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits. We assumed one of the four asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities subject to the PM standards would have conducted one performance test on one PM control device in the second year, or 2021, after the final rule is promulgated simply for the sole purpose of reestablishing new temperature and pressure drop operating limits. Therefore, we estimated a total industry-wide cost savings for using the proposed monitoring options in lieu of conducting a PM performance test to be $16,500 in 2017 dollars over a 5-year period.
Cost Savings for Extending Filter Replacements by Three Months
To comply with pressure drop operating limits established during the performance test for control devices used to comply with the PM standards of the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP, companies assert that they replace filters approximately 3-months sooner (e.g., every 12 months instead of every 15 months) than if pressure drop operating limits were allowed to be established using manufacturer specifications (as previously mentioned in section 4.0, facilities are currently required to conduct a performance test to reestablish new pressure drop operating limits). According to these companies, it is difficult to schedule testing dates that would capture a high enough pressure drop to account for the full range allowed by the manufacturer (see Appendix B).
Using air permits and the information received as part of the CAA section 114 request, we identified the asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities subject to the PM standards and estimated the number of filters used at each facility to comply with these PM standards. We determined a replacement cost of $35,000 per filter which is the average of the estimates provided to the EPA by CertainTeed Corporation and Owens Corning (see Appendix B).
Based on this information, we estimated a total industry-wide cost savings for extending filter replacements by three months to be $490,000 in 2017 dollars over a 5-year period . Table 2 summarizes these cost savings.
Table 2. Cost Savings for Extending Filter Replacements by Three Months
                                 Facility Name
                                     City
                                     State
                               Number of Filters
              Cost to Replace every 12-mths over 5-yr period[1,2]
                                      ($)
              Cost to Replace every 15-mths over 5-yr period[1,3]
                                      ($)
                         Net Savings over 5-yr period
                                      ($)
                                 Owens-Corning
                                  Minneapolis
                                      MN
                                       3
                                    525,000
                                    420,000
                                   (105,000)
                               Certainteed Corp.
                                    Oxford
                                      NC
                                       4
                                    700,000
                                    560,000
                                   (140,000)
                       Owens-Corning Fiberglass Trumball
                                    Medina
                                      OH
                                       4
                                    700,000
                                    560,000
                                   (140,000)
                               Certainteed Corp.
                                   Shakopee
                                      MN
                                       3
                                    525,000
                                    420,000
                                   (105,000)
                                                 TOTAL SAVINGS OVER 5-YR PERIOD
                                   (490,000)
[1]	Each filter replacement is assumed to be an average cost of $35,000 based on information provided by CertainTeed Corporation and Owens Corning.
[2]	Assumes filter is replaced every 12-months, or 5 times in 5 years. ($35,000/filter) x (# filters) x (5 replacements/5-year period).
[3]	Assumes filter is replaced every 15-months, or 4 times in 5 years. ($35,000/filter) x (# filters) x (4 replacements/5-year period).

NATIONWIDE COST IMPACTS
For the 8 facilities subject to the Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing NESHAP we estimate the following costs (in 2017$) over a 5-year period for the proposed amendments: $4,000 in 2019 associated with reviewing the proposed amendments and $138,800 in 2022 for 5-year periodic performance testing. We estimate the following cost savings (in 2017$) over a 5-year period for the proposed amendments: $16,500 in 2021 associated with the proposed monitoring options in lieu of a performance test and $490,000 in 2023 associated with extending filter replacements by three months. These costs and costs savings were presented in sections 2.0 through 4.0.

                                  APPENDIX A

DETAILS USED TO ESTIMATE COST OF REQUIRING 5-YEAR PERIODIC PERFORMANCE TESTING

                                 Facility Name
                                     City
                                     State
                           State Required
5-yr Tests
                           Asphalt Storage Tanks[1]
                               Number of Filters
                          Number of Thermal Oxidizers
                          VE or Opacity
Test Cost[1]
                                      ($)
                                PM
Test Cost[2]
                                      ($)
                               THC
Test Cost[3]
                                      ($)
                                Total
Test Cost
                                      ($)
                             Hunt Refining Company
                                  Tuscaloosa
                                      AL
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       0
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                       0
                                    20,750
                                see footnote 4
                                 Owens-Corning
                                  Minneapolis
                                      MN
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                    38,700
                                    20,750
                                see footnote 4
                  Hunt Southland Refining Co. - Sandersville
                                  Heidelberg
                                      MS
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                       0
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                       0
                                    20,750
                                    22,250
                               Certainteed Corp.
                                    Oxford
                                      NC
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                    49,800
                                    20,750
                                    72,050
                       Owens-Corning Fiberglass Trumball
                                    Medina
                                      OH
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       4
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                    49,800
                                    20,750
                                see footnote 4
                            Wynnewood Refining Co.
                                   Wynnewood
                                      OK
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                       0
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                       0
                                    20,750
                                    22,250
                              Valero Refining Co.
                                    Ardmore
                                      OK
                                      No
                                      Yes
                                       0
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                       0
                                    20,750
                                    22,250
                               Certainteed Corp.
                                   Shakopee
                                      MN
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                                       3
                                       1
                                     1,500
                                    38,700
                                    20,750
                                see footnote 4
                                                    TOTAL COST OVER 5-YR PERIOD
                                    138,800
[1]	Cost of opacity testing using EPA Test Method 9 is estimated to be $1,500. For each facility that has asphalt storage tanks, it was assumed that the facility would have at least one Method 9 test.
[2]	Cost of PM performance testing using EPA Test Method 5A is estimated to be $16,500 for first filter and an add-on charge of $11,100 for each additional filter.
[3]	Cost of THC performance testing using EPA Test Method 25A is estimated to range from $16,200 (concentration) to $20,750 (efficiency). We chose to be conservative and apply the higher cost of $20,750.
[4]	Costs not included for these facilities because they are already required to test every 5-yrs by the State permitting agency and will not incur additional testing costs with the new testing requirements.

                                  APPENDIX B

                         COMPANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

CertainTeed Corporation Email Correspondence

From: Spittler, Melissa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:15 AM
To: Dawson, Tonisha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Performance Testing

Good morning:

First  -  I want to clarify my email below on 8/13  -  it should read "not solely".

Second, thanks for asking about the filter costs. On average, the cost for replacing filters is approximately $60,000 each time it is done. Right now, we are changing filters 2-3 months earlier than recommended by the manufacturer.

If you need anything else, please let me know.

Thank you,

Melissa Spittler
CertainTeed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dawson, Tonisha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:00 AM
To: Spittler, Melissa
Subject: RE: Performance Testing

Based on the estimated filter cost you provided, it appears that having to replace filters early is a much higher expense than having to repeat testing. Am I interpreting this correctly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Spittler, Melissa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 8:07 AM
To: Dawson, Tonisha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Performance Testing

Hi Tonisha  -  I will respond to both of your questions in one email (frequency with filter bed changes and the cost question).

First, the quick one - 12 month interval for filter changes because of the issues with differential pressure being above tested.

Second - Yes, you are correct in interpreting the costs (change filters versus re-test). On the surface, the filter change can be an expensive undertaking compared to repeat testing. However, cost alone is not the only criteria to consider.

Re-testing has the potential to establish new conditions that a site would be subject to. As the group has shared with you previously, there are variables associated with testing that are not within our control, such as ambient temperature. Outside temperature can have an impact on operating conditions and attempts to control temperatures by other means have been unsuccessful. Similarly the atomizing of water may create other unintended process issues For example, one site evaluated the spraying of cool water into the duct work to maintain temperature. This was not effective  -  it shorted out electrical components and got into sealant, compromising the quality of the product.

Oxford did re-test, in an effort to obtain better operating parameters and chose to stop further re-testing because they were told that if they got lower numbers (i.e., more restrictive operating range), that would be their new limit. Summertime temperatures generally reach above 90°F consistently. On the flip side, when the weather is below freezing, ice crystals can form in the device which increases the differential pressure.

Obtaining results from performance testing can take up to 30 days, whereas, completing routine maintenance (filter changes) is performed as needed/scheduled, without delay and allowing greater operational flexibility without compromising operational compliance with operating limits.

Shakopee has not re-tested since their initial performance testing, however, they successfully reasoned with the Region 5 to use of manufacturers recommended values on their mist eliminators for inlet temp (120 degrees) and differential pressure (16 inches of water). I have provided a brief summary of that reasoning below, but in part, is because the MACT is specific in that the differential pressure and temperature requirement are for devices used to meet the particulate standard.

1.	Testing a mist eliminator on an outside storage tank at the maximum inlet temperature cannot be accomplished without manipulating the test. The maximum inlet temperature will follow ambient conditions since the mist eliminator is pulling atmospheric air across the headspace of the tank. It is nearly impossible to reach "worst case" inlet temperature numbers without reducing airflow with a baffle or otherwise manipulating the test. If the industry is going to be held to a maximum inlet temperature requirement based on the test, then the sites are going to artificially increase that number during the testing by manipulating airflow. Scheduling a Method 9 test on the hottest day of the year is problematic at best since the hottest day isn't always a clear enough day for testing, and the required 30 day notice for the testing prevents an accurate prediction of test day conditions.
2.	Differential pressure is a false indicator for the performance of a mist eliminator. The best treatment occurs at the highest differential pressures. Holding sites to a maximum established during testing means that sites can never use a filter that is "dirtier" than the one used during testing even though dirtier means better performance as a filter. This logic is flawed and will result in early filter replacement. In addition, icing occurs on the filter at extreme cold temperatures. For sites in the northernmost regions, maximum differential pressure occurs when the outside air is the coldest. It is impossible therefore to get to the maximum differential pressure during testing as the coldest temperatures occur in the middle of the night when method 9 observations are not possible.
3.	The mist eliminator manufacturers have guaranteed 0 percent opacity at up to 120 degree inlet temperature and 16 inches of differential pressure.
4.	CertainTeed has never "failed" an opacity test for a mist eliminator controlling emissions from group 2 tanks only. It is clear that there is no issue meeting 0 percent opacity at the maximum manufacturers recommended values of 120 degrees inlet temperature and 16 inches of water differential pressure.
5.	EPA region 5 has already agreed to allow CertainTeed to use manufacturers recommended values or the values obtained during the performance testing (whichever numbers are higher) as they have recognized the inherent issues with the language in the MACT as written. As such, the MACT should clearly differentiate between mist eliminators used to meet the particulate matter standard for production line sources and mist eliminators that are only used to control opacity from group 2 asphalt storage tanks.

Melissa
Owens Corning Email Correspondence

From: Whiteside, Devlin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 8:23 AM
To: Dawson, Tonisha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Whiteside, Devlin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Asphalt RTR Question

Hi Tonisha  -  cost depends on the size of the unit and the number of filters per unit. To change the filters in a small unit can be around $10,000 whereas a larger unit can be $60,000 or higher.

Devlin Whiteside
503-358-9234


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24915-24916]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10124]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0034; FRL-9927-08-OEI]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), Voluntary Aluminum
Industrial Partnership (VAIP) (Renewal)--EPA ICR No. 1867.05, OMB
Control No. 2060-0411--to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through June 30, 2015. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID number
provided above, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP)
was initiated in 1995 and is an important voluntary program
contributing to the overall reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.
This program focuses on reducing direct greenhouse gas emissions
including perfluorocarbon (PFC) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from the production of primary aluminum. Six of the seven
U.S. producers of primary aluminum participate in this program. PFCs
are very potent greenhouse gases with global warming potentials several
thousand times that of carbon dioxide, and they persist in the
atmosphere for thousands of years. CO2 is emitted from
consumption of the carbon anode. The Partnership effectively promotes
the adoption of emission reduction technologies and practices
associated with decreasing the frequency and duration of anode effects.
Participants voluntarily agree to designate a VAIP liaison, and to
undertake and share information on technically feasible and cost-
effective actions to reduce PFC and direct CO2 emissions.
The information contained in the annual reports of VAIP members is used
by EPA to assess the success of the program in achieving its goals and
to advance Partner efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers of primary aluminum.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).
    Frequency of response: Voluntary.
    Total estimated burden: 240 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $22,668 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-10124 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3287-3292]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74073; File No. SR-OCC-2014-812]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Concerning Extended and Overnight
Trading Sessions

January 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 \1\ (``Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act'') and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 12, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the

advance notice as described in Items I and II below, which Items have
been prepared by OCC.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the advance notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ OCC initially filed a similar advance notice on September
17, 2014. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73343 (October 14,
2014), 79 FR 62684 (October 20, 2014), (SR-OCC-2014-805). OCC
withdrew that advance notice on October 28, 2104. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73710 (December 1, 2014), 79 FR 72225
(December 5, 2014), (SR-OCC-2014-805).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This advance notice is filed by OCC in connection with a proposed
change to its operations concerning the clearance of confirmed trades
executed in extended and overnight trading sessions (hereinafter,
``overnight trading sessions'') offered by exchanges for which OCC
provides clearance and settlement services.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and
discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B)
below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the advance notice were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the advance notice and none
have been received.

(B) Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of Change
    This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed
change to OCC's operations concerning the clearance of confirmed trades
executed in overnight trading sessions offered by exchanges for which
OCC provides clearance and settlement services. OCC currently clears
overnight trading activity for CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'').\4\
The total number of trades submitted to OCC from overnight trading
sessions is nominal, typically less than 3,000 contracts per session.
However, OCC has recently observed an industry trend whereby exchanges
are offering overnight trading sessions beyond traditional hours.
Exchanges offering overnight trading sessions have indicated that such
sessions benefit market participants by providing additional price
transparency and hedging opportunities for products traded in such
sessions, which, in turn, promotes market stability.\5\ In light of
this trend, OCC proposes to implement a framework for clearing trades
executed in such sessions that includes: (1) Qualification criteria
used to approve clearing members for overnight trading sessions, (2)
systemic controls to identify trades executed during overnight trading
sessions by clearing members not approved for such sessions, (3)
enhancements to OCC's overnight monitoring of trades submitted by
exchanges during overnight trading sessions, (4) enhancements to OCC's
credit controls with respect to monitoring clearing members' credit
risk during overnight trading sessions, including procedures for
contacting an exchange offering overnight trading sessions in order to
invoke use of the exchange's kill switch, and (5) taking appropriate
disciplinary action against clearing members who attempt to clear
during overnight trading session without first obtaining requisite
approvals. These changes (described in greater detail below) are
designed to reduce and mitigate the risks associated with clearing
trades executed in overnight trading sessions. In addition, the only
products that will be eligible for overnight trading sessions are index
options and index futures products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ELX Futures LP (``ELX'') previously submitted overnight
trading activity to OCC, but currently does not submit trades from
overnight trading sessions to OCC. OCC will re-evaluate ELX's risk
controls in the event ELX re-institutes its overnight trading
sessions.
    \5\ See CFE-2014-010 at http://cfe.cboe.com/publish/CFErulefilings/SR-CFE-2014-010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's standards for determining whether to provide clearing
services for overnight trading sessions offered by an exchange and the
implementation of a framework are designed to work in conjunction with
the risk controls of the exchanges that offer overnight trading
sessions. OCC would confirm an exchange's risk controls as well as its
staffing levels as they relate to overnight trading sessions to
determine if OCC may reasonably rely on such risk controls to reduce
risk presented to OCC by the exchange's overnight trading sessions.
Such exchange risk controls will consist of: (1) Price reasonability
checks, (2) controls to prevent orders from being executed beyond a
certain percentage (determined by the exchange) from the initial
execution price, (3) activity based protections which focus on risk
beyond price, such as a high number of trades occurring in a set period
of time, and (4) kill switch capabilities, which may be initiated by
the exchange and can cancel all open quotes or all orders of a
particular participant. OCC believes that confirming the existence of
applicable pre-trade risk controls as well as overnight staffing at the
relevant exchanges is essential to mitigating risks presented to OCC
from overnight trading sessions.\6\ Providing clearing services to
exchanges offering such sessions is consistent with OCC's mission to
provide market participants with clearing and risk management solutions
that respond to changes in the marketplace and may result in increased
cleared contract volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Comparable controls are applied to futures and future option
trades executed in overnight trading sessions currently cleared by
OCC, although such controls have been implemented by clearing
futures commission merchants (``clearing FCMs'') pursuant to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') Regulation 1.73,
which also requires such clearing FCMs to monitor for adherence to
such controls during regular and overnight trading sessions. OCC
believes that it may reasonably rely on such regulation to reduce
risk presented to OCC during futures markets overnight trading
sessions. See 17 CFR 1.73. OCC also confirmed CFE maintains kill
switch capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualification Criteria
    In order to mitigate risks associated with clearing for overnight
trading sessions, clearing members that participate in such trading
sessions would be required to provide contact information to OCC for
operational and risk personnel available to be contacted by OCC during
such sessions. In addition, OCC would require that clearing members
participating in an overnight trading session to post additional margin
in a designated account in order to mitigate against the risk that OCC
cannot draft a clearing member's bank account during an overnight
trading session.\7\ OCC would also adopt a procedure whereby, on a
quarterly basis, it confirms its record of clearing members eligible
for overnight trading sessions with a similar record maintained by
exchanges offering such overnight trading sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Clearing members will be required to designate a firm
account to ensure that OCC has a general lien on the assets in the
account and can use them to satisfy any obligation of the clearing
member to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to providing operational and risk contacts, under OCC
Rule 201, each clearing member is required to maintain facilities for
conducting

business with OCC, and a representative of the clearing member
authorized in the name of the clearing member to take all action
necessary for conducting business with OCC is required to be available
at the facility during such hours as may be specified from time-to-time
by OCC. Similarly, OCC Rules 214(c) and (d) require clearing members to
ensure that they have the appropriate number of qualified personnel and
to maintain the ability to process anticipated volumes and values of
transactions. OCC would use this existing authority to require clearing
members trading during overnight trading sessions to maintain
operational and risk staff that may be contacted by OCC during such
sessions.
    OCC would impose upon clearing members qualified to participate in
overnight trading sessions additional margin requirement in an amount
of the lesser of $10 million or 10% of the clearing member's net
capital (``Additional Margin''), which would be equal to the first
monitoring risk threshold (described below) and which would be
collected the morning before each overnight trading sessions. Clearing
members must identify the proprietary account that would be charged the
Additional Margin amount. The Additional Margin requirement is intended
to provide OCC with additional margin assets should a clearing member's
credit risk increase during overnight trading sessions.\8\ OCC proposes
to adopt a process whereby each morning OCC Financial Risk Management
staff would assess the Additional Margin requirement against clearing
members eligible to participate in overnight trading sessions. Clearing
members that do not have sufficient excess margin on deposit with OCC
to meet the Additional Margin amount would be required to deposit
additional funds with OCC to satisfy the Additional Margin
requirement.\9\ This process would be adopted under existing rule
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Clearing members approved for overnight trading sessions who
do not meet the Additional Margin requirement for a given overnight
trading session would be treated like a clearing member not approved
overnight trading sessions, as described below.
    \9\ Under OCC Rule 601, OCC has the discretion to fix the margin
requirement for any account at an amount that it deems necessary or
appropriate under the circumstances to protect the interests of
clearing members, OCC and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, OCC also would confirm that an exchange offering
overnight trading sessions has adopted a procedure whereby such
exchange would contact OCC when a trader requests trading privileges
during overnight trading sessions. The purpose of this contact is to
verify that the trader's clearing firm (i.e., the OCC clearing member)
is approved for overnight trading sessions. If the applicable OCC
clearing member is not approved for overnight trading sessions, then
the clearing member must receive OCC's approval for overnight trading
sessions, or the exchange would not provide the trader trading
privileges during overnight trading sessions. Moreover, OCC would
confirm that an exchange offering overnight trading sessions has
implemented a procedure to periodically (i.e., quarterly) validate its
record of approved clearing firms against OCC's record of clearing
members approved for overnight trading sessions. Any discrepancies
between the two records would be promptly resolved by either the
clearing member obtaining approval at OCC for overnight trading
sessions, or by the exchange revoking the clearing firm's trading
privileges for overnight trading sessions.
Systemic Controls
    OCC plans to implement system changes so that trades submitted to
OCC during overnight trading sessions that have been executed by
clearing members not approved for such trading sessions would be
reviewed by OCC staff after acceptance but before being processed (each
such trade a [sic] being a ``Reviewed Trade''). OCC would contact the
submitting exchange regarding each Reviewed Trade in order to determine
if the trade is a valid trade. If the exchange determines that the
Reviewed Trade was in error such that, as provided in Article VI,
Section 7(c), new or revised trade information is required to properly
clear the transaction, OCC expects the exchange would instruct OCC to
disregard or ``bust'' the trade. If the exchange determines that the
Reviewed Trade was not in error, then OCC would clear the Reviewed
Trade and take appropriate disciplinary action against the non-approved
clearing member, as described below. OCC believes that clearing the
Reviewed Trade is appropriate in order to avoid potentially harming the
clearing member approved for overnight trading sessions that is on the
opposite side of the transaction.
Overnight Monitoring
    OCC plans to implement additional overnight monitoring in order to
better monitor clearing members' credit risk during overnight trading
sessions. Such monitoring of credit risk is similar to existing OCC
practices concerning futures cleared during overnight trading hours and
includes automated processes within ENCORE to measure, by clearing
member: (i) The aggregate mark-to-market amounts of a clearing member's
positions, including positions created during overnight trading, based
on current prices using OCC's Portfolio Revaluation system, (ii) the
aggregate incremental margin produced by all positions resulting from
transactions executed during overnight trading, and (iii) with respect
to options cleared during overnight trading hours, the aggregate net
trade premium positions resulting from trades executed during overnight
trading (each of these measures being a ``Credit Risk Number''). Hourly
credit reports would be generated by ENCORE containing the Credit Risk
Numbers expressed in terms of both dollars and, except for the mark-to-
market position values, as a percentage of net capital for each
clearing member trading during overnight trading sessions. The Credit
Risk Numbers are the same information used by OCC staff to evaluate
clearing member exposure during regular trading hours and, in addition
to OCC's knowledge of its clearing members' businesses, are effective
measures of the risk presented to OCC by each clearing member. OCC's
Operations staff would review such reports as they are generated and,
in the event that any of the Credit Risk Numbers for positions
established by a clearing member during an overnight trading session
exceeds established thresholds, staff would alert OCC's Market Risk
staff \10\ of the exceedance in accordance with established procedures,
as described below. Market Risk staff would follow a standardized
process concerning such exceedances, including escalation to OCC's
management, if required by such process. Given the nominal volume of
trades executed in overnight trading sessions that are presently
submitted for clearance, no changes in current staffing levels that
support overnight clearing activities is contemplated at this time,
however, such staffing levels will be periodically assessed and
adjusted, as appropriate. As part of the overnight clearing activities,
OCC has, however, designated an on-call Market Risk duty officer who
would be responsible for reviewing issues that arise when clearing for
overnight trading session and determining what measures to be taken as
well as additional escalation, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC's Member Services staff will also receive alerts in
order to contact clearing members as may be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to OCC's escalation thresholds, if any Credit Risk
Number of a clearing member approved for overnight trading sessions is
$10 million

or more, or any Credit Risk Number equals 10% or more of the clearing
member's net capital, OCC's Operations staff would be required to
provide email notification to Market Risk and Member Services staff. If
any Credit Risk Number of a clearing member not approved for overnight
trading sessions is $10 million or more, or any Credit Risk Number
equals 10% or more of the clearing member's net capital, OCC's
Operations would also notify Market Risk and Member Services staff as
well as its senior management. Such departments would take action to
prevent additional trading by the non-approved clearing member,
including contacting the exchange to invoke use of the exchange's kill
switch.
    If any Credit Risk Number of a clearing member approved for
overnight trading sessions is $50 million or more, or equals 25% or
more of the clearing member's net capital, Operations staff would be
required to contact, by telephone: (i) Market Risk and Member Services,
(ii) the applicable exchange for secondary review, and (iii) the
clearing member's designated contacts. The on-call Market Risk duty
officer would also consider if additional action is necessary, which
may include contacting a designated executive officer in order to issue
an intra-day margin call, increase the clearing member's margin
requirement in order to prevent the withdrawal of a specified amount of
excess margin collateral, if any, the clearing member has on deposit
with OCC or contacting the exchange in order to invoke use of its kill
switch. If any Credit Risk Number is $75 million or more, or equals 50%
or more of the clearing member's net capital, Operations staff would be
required to contact, by telephone, Market Risk staff, the on-call
Market Risk duty officer and a designated executive officer. Such
officer would be responsible for reviewing the situation and
determining whether to implement credit controls, which are described
in greater detail below and include: issuing an intra-day margin call,
increasing a clearing member's margin requirement in order to prevent
the withdrawal of a specified amount of excess margin collateral, if
any, the clearing member has on deposit with OCC, whether further
escalation is warranted in order for OCC to take protective measures
pursuant to OCC Rule 305, or contact the exchange in order to invoke
use of its kill switch. OCC chose the above described escalation
thresholds based on its analysis of historical overnight trading
activity across the futures industry. OCC believes that these
thresholds strike an appropriate balance between effective risk
monitoring and operational efficiency.
Credit Controls
    In order to address credit risk associated with trading during
overnight trading sessions, and as described above, OCC would collect
Additional Margin from clearing members as well as monitor and analyze
the impact that positions established during such sessions have on a
clearing member's overall exposure. Should the need arise based on
threshold breaches described above, and pursuant to OCC Rule 609, OCC
may require the deposit of additional margin (``intra-day margin'') by
any clearing member that increases its incremental risk as a result of
trading activity during overnight trading sessions. Accordingly, a
clearing member's positions established during such sessions will be
incorporated into OCC's intra-day margin process. Should a clearing
member's exposure significantly increase while settlement banks are not
open to process an intra-day margin call, OCC has the authority under
OCC Rule 601 to increase a clearing member's margin requirement which
would restrict its ability to withdraw excess margin collateral. The
implementation of these measures is discussed more fully below.
    In the event that a clearing member's exposure during overnight
trading sessions causes a clearing member to exceed OCC's intra-day
margin call threshold for overnight night trading sessions, OCC would
require the clearing member to deposit intra-day margin equal to the
increased incremental risk presented by the clearing member.
Specifically, if a clearing member has a total risk charge \11\
exceeding 25% (a reduction of the usual figure of 50%), as computed
overnight by OCC's STANS system, and a loss of greater than $50,000
from an overnight trading session(s), as computed by Portfolio
Revaluation, OCC would initiate an intra-day margin call. OCC would
know at approximately 8:30 a.m. (Central Time) if an intra-day margin
call on a clearing member would be initiated based on breaches of these
thresholds. This ``start of business'' margin call is in addition to
daily margin OCC collects from clearing members pursuant to OCC Rule
605, any intra-day margin call that OCC may initiate as a result of
regular trading sessions or special margin call that OCC may initiate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Total risk charge is a number derived from STANS outputs
and is the sum of expected shortfall, stress test charges and any
add-on charges computed by STANS. STANS is OCC's proprietary margin
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to, or instead of, requiring additional intra-day
margin, OCC Rule 601 \12\ and OCC's Clearing Member Margin Call Policy
work together to authorize Market Risk staff to increase a clearing
member's margin requirement which may be in an amount equal to an
intra-day margin call.\13\ (Any increased margin requirement will
remain in effect until the next business day.) This action would
immediately prevent clearing members from withdrawing any excess margin
collateral (in the amount of the increased margin requirement) the
clearing member has deposited with OCC. With respect to clearing trades
executed in overnight trading sessions, and in the event OCC requires
additional margin from a clearing member, Market Risk staff may use
increased margin requirements as a means of collateralizing the
increase in incremental risk a clearing member incurred during such
sessions without having to wait for banks to open to process an intra-
day margin call.\14\ Such action may be taken by OCC instead of or in
addition to issuing an intra-day margin call depending on the amount of
excess margin a clearing member has on deposit with OCC and the amount
of the incremental risk presented by such clearing member. The
expansion of OCC's intra-day margin call process as described in the
preceding paragraph, including OCC's ability to manually increase
clearing members' margin requirements, would mitigate the risk that OCC
is under-collateralized as a result of overnight trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition, OCC Rule 601 provides OCC with the authority
to fix the margin requirement for any account or any class of
cleared contracts at such amount as it deems necessary or
appropriate under the circumstances to protect the respective
interests of clearing members, OCC and the public.
    \13\ Clearing members frequently deposit margin at OCC in excess
of requirements.
    \14\ Clearing members would be able to substitute the locked-up
collateral during normal time frames (i.e., 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(Central Time) for equity securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, a designated executive officer may call an exchange
offering overnight trading sessions to invoke use of its kill switch.
The kill switch would prevent a clearing member (or the market
participant clearing through a clearing member) from executing trades
on the exchange during a given overnight trading session or, if needed,
stop all trading during a given overnight trading session. Finally,
pursuant to OCC Rule 305, the Executive Chairman or the President of
OCC, in certain situations, has the authority to impose limitations and
restrictions on the transactions, positions and activities of

a clearing member. This authority would be used, as needed, in the
event a clearing member accumulates significant credit risk during
overnight trading sessions, or a clearing member's activities during
such trading sessions otherwise warrant OCC taking protective action.
Rule Enforcement Actions
    In order to deter clearing members from attempting to participate
in overnight trading sessions without authorization as well as
appropriately enforce the above described processes, OCC would ensure
that any attempt by a clearing member to participate in overnight
trading sessions without first obtaining the necessary approval would
result in the initiation of a rule enforcement action against such
clearing member. As described above, clearing members not approved for
overnight trading sessions who trade during such overnight sessions
would have their trades reviewed by OCC staff. Clearing members who
attempted to participate in overnight trading sessions that did not
obtain the necessary approval to do so would be subject to a minor rule
violation fine.\15\ In addition, if a clearing member's operational or
risk contacts for overnight trading sessions were unavailable had OCC
attempted to contact such individuals, the clearing member would be
subject to a minor rule violation fine. OCC has existing processes in
place to monitor for clearing member violations of OCC's rules and such
processes would also apply to clearing member activity during overnight
trading sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See OCC Rule 1201(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    Clearing transactions executed in overnight trading sessions may
increase risk presented to OCC due to the period of time between trade
acceptance and settlement, the staffing levels at clearing members
during such trading sessions and the deferment of executing intra-day
margin calls until banking settlement services are operational.
However, OCC would expand its risk management practices in order to
mitigate these risks by implementing, and expanding, the various tools
discussed above. For example, OCC would enhance its monitoring
practices in order to closely monitor clearing members' credit risk
from trades placed during overnight trading sessions as well as
implement processes so that OCC takes appropriate action when such
credit risk exceeds certain limits. OCC would also use its existing
authority to require adequate clearing member staffing during such
trading sessions, in order to mitigate the operational risk associated
with clearing members trading while they are not fully staffed. These
risk management functions would work in tandem with risk controls,
including the implementation of kill switch capabilities, adopted by
the exchanges operating overnight trading sessions or by clearing FCMs,
as applicable.
    In addition to the above, OCC would adapt existing processes so
that such processes can be used to mitigate risk associated with
overnight trading sessions. Specifically, OCC would exercise its
authority to issue margin calls, and prevent the withdrawal of excess
margin on deposit at OCC, as a result of activity during such trading
sessions as a means of reducing risk. OCC also would implement a
systemic function to identify trades executed during overnight trading
sessions by clearing members not approved for such trading sessions for
further review prior to allowing such trades to proceed further through
OCC's clearance processing, and therefore mitigate the risk of losses
from erroneous trades. Finally, OCC would be able to assess the need to
take protective action pursuant to OCC Rule 305 as a result of clearing
member activity during such sessions.
Consistency With the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
    OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section
805(b)(1) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act \16\
because the proposed change would promote robust risk management.\17\
OCC believes that the proposed changes described above would provide
OCC with the tools necessary to mitigate risks that may occur as a
result of overnight trading sessions. Specifically, OCC would implement
risk monitoring processes designed to identify increases in credit risk
presented to OCC as a result of such sessions as well as implement
changes designed to mitigate operational risk associated with overnight
trading sessions. In addition, OCC would adapt certain existing
practices to accommodate these overnight trading sessions including its
margin call process and its authority to take protective action
pursuant to OCC Rule 305. These practices are designed to identify and
mitigate risks that may be presented to OCC as a result of overnight
trading sessions and thereby promote robust risk management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \17\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the Commission receives the notice of proposed change, or
(ii) the date the Commission receives any further information it
requests for consideration of the notice. The clearing agency shall not
implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to
the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed
changes that are implemented.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
change, is consistent with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision 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-OCC-2014-812 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-OCC-2014-812. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the advance
notice between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_14_812.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-812
and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00970 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Emergency Clearance Request Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Tips & Complaints Web Form EPA ICR # 2219.01 Program Contact: Michael LeDesma Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA) ( 303) 462 9453 The Office of Compliance and Enforcement Assurance ( OECA) of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or Agency) is seeking approval for a tips and complaints web form that allows members of the public to report environmental violations. Previously, EPA had a similar web form available that was exempt from the PRA because it posed only open ended, non directive questions. The new web form is more directive and has proven much more effective at eliciting the information needed to evaluate a tip or complaint. The clarity of the questions posed by the new form and the form's ease of use have also resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of tips and complaints received. However, OECA has realized that the new form requires OMB approval. In order not to interrupt the ongoing collection of tips and complaints regarding violations that may threaten human health or the environment, the Agency is seeking emergency approval of the collection under 5 C. F. R. § 1320.13.

Emergency clearance of the current tips and complaints form is needed to avoid possible public harm and likely disruption in the collection of usable information. Under the statutes that EPA is charged to administer, apprehending violators and responding to ongoing environmental violations is central to the Agency's mission. EPA's criminal enforcement program, and, to a lesser extent, its civil enforcement program are highly dependent on tips and complaints from concerned citizens and members of the regulated community. Moreover, the new OECA tips and complaints web form has proven much more effective at eliciting tips than predecessor forms. The new form has also proven more effective at eliciting the information needed to quickly and accurately evaluate the allegations than the form's lessdirective predecessors. Accordingly, the Agency is concerned that, in the absence of an emergency clearance, the Agency would not receive or be able to properly evaluate many tips and complaints. These complaints may pertain to criminal violations and/ or violations that pose an ongoing threat to human health or the environment.

The new OECA tips and complaints form greatly enhances the quality and usability of the information collected while simultaneously minimizing burden on tippers. Submission of a tip or complaint is entirely voluntarily and may be done anonymously. The form is a " smart" form in that each of the questions posed by the form is intended to elicit a piece of information that is needed to route, evaluate, or investigate the allegation   no extraneous information is collected. Radio buttons and check boxes are used, where appropriate, to make the form easier to complete. The form is, nonetheless, flexible enough to allow tippers to provide whatever information they deem relevant. Our experience with the form to date indicates that it is much less burdensome than its less directive predecessors because tippers need not parse through instructions or examples to determine what information the Agency deems relevant. Indeed, the success of the new form is, itself, strong evidence that it effectively minimizes burden while simultaneously maximizing the usability of the collected information.

The Agency estimates that there will be about 1200 users of the web form annually and on the average it should take about 30 minutes to complete it. Total annual burden for the web form should be about 600 hours.

Attachments: OMB 83 I Form Printout of current OECA tips and complaints web form.