[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11094-11095]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14537-001]

Antrim Treatment Trust; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
With the Commission, Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To
Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and
Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and
Prescriptions, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for Processing

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14537-001.
    c. Date filed: December 12, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Antrim Treatment Trust.
    e. Name of Project: Antrim Micro-Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The project would utilize diverted water from an
existing pond that collects acidic mine discharge from abandoned mines
located in Duncan Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania. The project
would be located on lands owned by the applicant and would not occupy
any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Margaret H. Dunn, Biomost, Inc., 434 Spring
Street Ext., Mars, PA 16046. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659

(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14537-001.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The Antrim Micro-Hydropower Project would
consist of the following existing features: (1) A 0.25-acre-foot
collection pond; (2) a 12-inch-diameter, 435-foot-long polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe that conveys raw water from a collection pond to a
60-foot-diameter concrete clarifier with a capacity of 33,500 cubic
feet in a treatment plant,\1\ (3) a 12-inch-diameter, 143-foot-long
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe to convey treated water from the
treatment plant to a forebay; (4) a 12-inch-diameter, 155-foot-long
HDPE pipe connected to the 12-inch-diameter PVC pipe to bypass raw
water to the forebay during high flow conditions or plant maintenance;
(5) a forebay with a net storage capacity of 6,000 cubic feet; (6) an
18-inch-diameter, 972-foot-long penstock from the forebay to the
powerhouse; (7) a powerhouse with two identical impulse turbine-
generator units with a combined rated capacity of 40 kilowatts; (8) a
75-foot-long tailrace to convey flows from the powerhouse to an unnamed
tributary to Bridge Run; (9) a 1,300-foot-long, 460-volt buried
transmission line; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project is
estimated to generate an average of 250 megawatt-hours annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are various other facilities in the treatment plant,
but they are not necessary for the hydropower purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicant currently operates one turbine as an off-grid
project, and proposes to bring the other turbine (currently in place
but non-operational) online by additional indoor wiring within the
existing powerhouse and the treatment plant, and operate both turbines
as a grid-connected project.
    m. Due to the project works already existing and the limited scope
of new work described above, the applicant's close coordination with
federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application,
and agency comments, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the
licensing process. Based on a review of the application, resource
agency consultation letters, and agency comments, Commission staff
intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission
staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA
have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, and no
new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The
EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project
construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial,
threatened and endangered species, and cultural and historic resources.
    n. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may 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. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    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, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    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, and .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.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.
    MILESTONE: Notice of the availability of the EA.
    TARGET DATE: August 2014.

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04276 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32501-32503]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12794]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69632; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Rule Governing Cancellation of Orders in the Event of an Issuer
Corporate Action Related to a Dividend, Payment or Distribution, and To
Make Related Clarifications to Rule Text

May 23, 2013.
    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 May 16, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 adopt a rule governing cancellation of
orders in the event of an issuer corporate action related to a
dividend, payment or distribution, and to make related clarifications
to rule text.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx is proposing to adopt Rule 3311 to address the treatment of
quotes/orders in securities that are the subject of issuer corporate
actions related to a dividend, payment or distribution (a ``corporate
action''). The rule will apply to any trading interest that is carried
on the PSX book overnight.\4\ The proposed Phlx rule would provide that
in the event of any corporate action, Phlx will cancel open quote/
orders on the ex-date of the action, thereby imposing on the member
that entered the order the responsibility for determining whether it
wishes to reenter the order and if so, at what price and size. The
cancellation would occur immediately prior to the opening of the Phlx
Equities Market at 8 a.m. on the ex-date of the corporate action, and
the member would receive a cancellation notice, so that it could, if it
desired, reenter the order at the commencement of trading on the ex-
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Phlx notes that its market participants have not
historically made use of such good-`till-cancelled trading interest,
but believes that a rule should be adopted to ensure that the
treatment of such orders is clearly specified by its rules. The
Commission notes that Phlx stated in Form 19b-4 regarding SR-Phlx-
2013-56 that the term ``PSX'' refers to NASDAQ OMX PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Phlx is proposing to amend Rule 3306(b) to make it
clear that quotes do not necessarily remain open overnight.
Specifically, Phlx is modifying a description of open quotes, the
original intent of which is unclear and that accordingly may result in
confusion.\5\ The sentence in question

appears to reflect the idea that an open quote (i.e., a quote
designated to remain open at the end of the trading day) would be
processed in the same manner as a System Hours GTC Order. While
accurate, this statement does not reflect the fact that a quote may
also accurately be described as an Attributable Order entered by a PSX
Market Maker or Equities ECN (i.e., trading interest that is identified
as having been entered by a particular market participant). Moreover,
although an Attributable Order may be entered with a time-in-force of
good-`till-cancelled and thereby remain open overnight, such orders
have not historically been used by Phlx market participants.
Accordingly, Phlx believes that the focus of the current sentence on
orders remaining open might imply that all quotes would remain open
overnight, when as a factual matter this would be the case only to the
extent a quote was designated as good-`till-cancelled. Phlx proposes to
amend the sentence to provide that ``Quotes will be processed as
Attributable Orders, with such time-in-force designation as the PSX
Market Maker or Equities ECN may assign.'' Finally, Phlx proposes to
amend the rule to capitalize the word ``System'' to reflect that it is
a defined term in the rules governing PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rule in question was adopted recently as part of a
proposed rule change that adopted rules in effect at The NASDAQ
Stock Market (``NASDAQ'') and/or NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') with respect
to market making. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69452 (April
25, 2013), 78 FR 25512 (May 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-24). Proposed
rule changes to amend the corresponding NASDAQ and BX rules in a
manner similar to this proposed rule change were filed while SR-
Phlx-2013-24 was awaiting approval. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 69454 (April 25, 2013), 78 FR 25506 (May 1, 2013) (SR-
NASDAQ-2013-068); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69456 (April
25, 2013), 78 FR 25510 (May 1, 2013) (SR-BX-2013-031).
     It should be noted that although Phlx rules now permit members
to register and trade as PSX Market Makers or Equities ECNs, no
member has yet currently registered with such a status. Accordingly,
the following discussion regarding the use and processing of quotes
should be understood as not having a direct impact on any current
Phlx market participants. Rather, the proposed rule change is
intended to ensure that the rules that would govern such matters are
clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, Phlx believes
that the change will simplify Phlx's rule governing adjustment of open
quotes/orders in the event of corporate actions by making it clear that
all such quotes/orders will be cancelled, thereby ensuring that market
participants have appropriate notice of the possibility that they may
either deem it advisable not to reenter such quotes/orders, or to
reenter them with such adjustments to price and/or size as the market
participant deems advisable to reflect the corporate action. Thus, the
change will facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market by providing additional assurance
that market participants carefully manage the trading interest that
they enter into Phlx. In addition, the proposed changes to Rule 3306
are designed to improve the clarity and accuracy of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, Phlx
believes that the rule change does not affect the availability or
pricing of goods or services offered by the Exchange, and therefore
does not impact competition between the Exchange and others. Rather,
the change is designed to adopt and clarify rules to better describe
the operation of the Exchange's trading systems, but in a manner that
does not restrict the ability of members to enter and update trading
interest in PSX.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-56 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-Phlx-2013-56. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2013-56 and should be submitted on or before June 20, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12794 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, OAR, OAQPS 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0003 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Prevention of Significant Deterioration Non Attainment Area New Source Review ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR # 1230.17 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act 10. Abstract This ICR pertains to the renewal of the New Source Review programs codified in parts 51 and 52 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These requirements govern the state and Federal programs for preconstruction review and permitting of major new and modified sources pursuant to Part C " Prevention of Significant Deterioration" and Part D " Program Requirements for Nonattainment Areas" of the Clean Air Act as amended.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 150,723 b. Total annual responses 150,723 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically % c. Total hours requested 5,851,126 d. Current OMB inventory 4,878,634 e. Difference 972,492 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 972,492 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P__ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Juan E. Santiago Phone: 919 541 1084 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53230-53234]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21250]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72957; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Complex Orders

September 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 19, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to complex orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to complex orders
to: (i) Simplify the definitions of the complex order types that may be
made available on a class-by-class basis and remove references to
certain specific complex order types that will no longer be defined;
(ii) with respect to complex orders in open outcry, set forth
applicable ratios and order ticket requirements for an order to be
eligible for complex order priority within applicable priority rules;
and (iii) with respect to complex orders in open outcry, make explicit
the priority applicable when there are other complex orders or quotes
represented at the same net price, whether such other orders or quotes
are in the complex order book (``COB'') or being represented in open
outcry.
    First, with respect to definitions, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 6.53 to remove the definitions of spread order, combination order,
straddle order and ratio order and replace them with a more general
definition of a complex order (which includes a stock-option order and
a security future-option order) to simplify the descriptions of the
complex order types that may be made available on a class-by-class
basis. The proposed definition of a ``complex order'' is any order for
the same account as defined below:
     A ``complex order'' is any order involving the execution
of two or more different options series in the same underlying security
occurring at or near the same time within an applicable ratio that may
be determined by the Exchange and for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy.
     A ``stock-option order'' is proposed to be defined as an
order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or
a security convertible into the underlying stock (``convertible
security'') coupled with either (a) the purchase or sale of options
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either (i)
the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security, or (ii) the number of units of the underlying stock necessary
to create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater
than an applicable ratio that may be determined by the Exchange (where
the ratio represents the total number of units of the underlying stock
or convertible security in the option leg to the total number of units
of the underlying stock or convertible security in the stock leg) or
(b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option
contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date and
each representing the same number of units of stock as, and on the
opposite side of the market from, the underlying stock or convertible
security portion of the order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1.1(ii) currently defines a ``stock-option order'' as
an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or
a related security coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of
option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing
either the same number of units of the underlying or related
security or the number of units of the underlying security necessary
to create a delta neutral position or (ii) the purchase or sale of
an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the
same exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market
from, the underlying or related security portion of the order. The
proposed rule change deletes this definition and references the
proposed definition in Rule 6.53 to eliminate the confusion of
having two separate definitions. The current definition and proposed
definition are substantially similar. However, the Exchange believes
the language in the proposed definition is more consistent with the
language in other rules, including Rules 6.53C (related to
electronic handling of complex orders) and 6.80 (related to order
protection, which relates to the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Markets Plan, also commonly referred to as the
Options Distributive Linkage Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The purposed rule change moves the definition of a
``security future-option order'' from Rule 1.1(zz) to Rule 6.53 so that
all definitions of the various types of complex orders are located in
the same place within the rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 1.1(zz) defines a ``security future-option order,''
which is deemed a type of Inter-regulatory Spread Order as that term
is defined in Rule 1.1(ll), as an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of a security future or a related security
convertible into a security future (``convertible security future'')
coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of option contract(s)
on the opposite side of the market representing either the same
number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future or the number of units of the underlying for the
security future or convertible security future necessary to create a
delta neutral position or (ii) the purchase or sale of an equal
number of put and call option contracts, each having the same
exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same
number of the underlying for the security future or convertible
security future, as and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying for the security future or convertible security future
portion of the order. Rule 1.1(ll) defines an ``Inter-regulatory
Spread Order'' as an order involving the simultaneous purchase and/
or sale of at least one unit in contracts each of which is subject
to different regulatory jurisdictions at stated limits, or at a
stated differential, or at market prices on the floor of the
Exchange. The proposed rule change deletes the definition in Rule
1.1(zz) and references the definition in the proposed new location
in Rule 6.53.

This proposed complex order definition is in part modeled after the
definition of a complex order (including a stock-option order) already
contained in Rule 6.53C(a). The Exchange proposes conforming changes to
Rules 6.9 (including Interpretation and Policy .03), 6.42,
Interpretation and Policy .01, 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii), 6.45B(b)(ii),
6.48(b), 6.73(c), 6.74(d)(iii) and 8.51 to harmonize these rules with
the proposed changes in Rule 6.53 to consistently reference the
proposed new

definition of a complex order.\5\ As a result of the proposed changes
to Rule 6.53, the Exchange proposes to update related cross-references
in Rules 6.53, 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .08, 6.74(d)(iii),
7.12(b)(i)(E), 24.A.5 and 24B.5.\6\ The Exchange notes that the
``applicable ratios'' referenced above that may be determined by the
Exchange are or are proposed to be further described in various other
Exchange Rules (e.g., Rule 6.53C with respect to electronic trading and
Rules 6.45, 6.45A and 6.45B with respect to open outcry trading
(proposed changes discussed below)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also deletes the paragraph
lettering from the order type definitions and puts the order types
in alphabetical order, which the Exchange believes will allow
investors to more easily locate the order type definitions within
the rules. Other than proposed changes to the definition of complex
orders as described above, the proposed rule change makes no
substantive changes to the order type definitions.
    \6\ In addition, cross-references in Rules 6.45, 6.45A and 6.45B
to ``[s]tock-option orders and security future-option orders, as
defined in Rules 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule 1.1(zz)(a), respectively'' are
proposed to be replaced with the phrase ``[s]tock-option orders and
security future-option orders that include only one option series
leg.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to complex orders represented and executed in
open outcry, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.45 (pertaining
to the priority of bids and offers and allocation of trades in non-CBOE
Hybrid System classes), 6.45A (pertaining to the priority of bids and
offers and allocation of trades in equity options traded on the CBOE
Hybrid System) and 6.45B (pertaining to the priority of bids and offers
and allocation of trades in index and ETF options traded on the CBOE
Hybrid System).\7\ The proposed changes set forth applicable ratios and
order ticket requirements for complex orders to be eligible for complex
order priority when represented and executed in open outcry.\8\
Currently, Exchange and/or TPH system limitations may prevent a multi-
part order with more than a certain number of legs from being entered
on a single order ticket for representation and execution in open
outcry as a complex order. For example, orders entered via the
Exchange-sponsored PULSe workstation and Floor Broker Workstation
(``FBW'') are currently limited to four legs. As a result, complex
orders with more than the applicable leg limitation that are
represented in open outcry must be split up and entered on multiple
order tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under those rules, a complex order may be executed at a net
debit or credit price with another TPH without giving priority to
equivalent bids (offers) in the individual series legs that are
represented in the trading crowd or in the public customer limit
order book provided at least one leg of the order betters the
corresponding bid (offer) in the public customer limit order book by
at least one minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 6.42
(i.e., $0.10, $0.05 or $0.01, as applicable) or $0.01, which
increment is determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis.
Stock-option orders and security future-option orders have priority
over bids (offers) of the trading crowd but not over bids (offers)
in the public customer limit order book.
    \8\ To be eligible for electronic processing via the CBOE Hybrid
System's COB and complex order RFR auction (``COA''), the system
already requires that a complex order be entered on a single order
ticket to be electronically processed. Under existing Rule
6.53C(a)(1) and (2), the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class
basis the applicable number of legs of a complex order or stock-
option order that is eligible for processing via COB and COA. Under
the same provisions, the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class
basis within certain parameters the applicable ratio of a complex
order or stock-option order that is eligible for processing via COB
and COA . Currently, the Exchange has limited COB and COA to orders
of no more than four (4) legs and ratios equal to or greater than
one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00)
(and, for stock-option orders, ratios no greater than eight-to-one
(8.00)). Under this current structure, orders with more than four
(4) legs or that do not satisfy the ratio requirements are not
eligible for electronic processing via COB or COA, but would instead
be routed for handling in open outcry. The proposed rule change adds
language to the introductory paragraph of Rule 6.53C(a) to
explicitly state that the definitions of complex orders contained in
that rule apply only for purposes of the electronic handling of
complex orders pursuant to that rule, notwithstanding the proposed
broader definition of complex order contained in Rule 6.53. Because
there are two separate definitions of complex orders, the Exchange
believes this additional language will bring clarity to the rules
about when the definition of complex orders in Rule 6.53C(a)
applies, which is in the context of electronic trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For consistency in processing and in order to enhance the
Exchange's audit trail, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules 6.45(e),
6.45A(b)(ii) and 6.45B(b)(ii) to require that, to be eligible for open
outcry complex order priority, a complex order (as proposed to be
defined in Rule 6.53 and as discussed above) must be within the
applicable ratio (discussed below) and must be for either:
     Twelve (12) legs or less (one leg of which may be for an
underlying security or security future, as applicable) and entered on a
single order ticket at time of systemization; or
     more than twelve (12) legs (one leg of which may be for an
underlying security or security future, as applicable) and split across
multiple order tickets \9\ if the Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'')
representing the complex order identifies for the Exchange the order
tickets that are part of the same complex order (in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange). The Exchange will announce by Regulatory
Circular whether it permits complex orders with more than 12 legs and,
if so permitted, the form and manner in which the TPH must link the
multiple order tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that it is not imposing requirements on
how a complex order with more than 12 legs should be split across
multiple tickets, other than the requirement discussed above that
each ticket identify the other applicable tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, complex orders represented in open outcry must
be within an applicable ratio to be eligible for complex order
priority. The proposed rule change amends Rules 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii)
and 6.45B(b)(ii) to set forth this applicable ratio. The Exchange
proposes that the applicable ratio be as follows:
     For a complex order involving two or more different
options series, any ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00);
     for a stock-option order, the options leg(s) must (i)
represent the same number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security in the stock leg, or (ii) represent the number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to
create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than
eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of
units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the options
leg to the total number of units of stock or convertible security in
the stock leg; and
     for a security futures-option order, the options leg(s)
must (i) represent the same number of units of the underlying stock in
the security future leg, or (ii) represent the number of units of the
underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in
no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio
represents the total number of units of the underlying stock in the
options leg to the total number of units of stock or convertible
security in the security-futures leg.

The proposed rule change also adds to the respective rules that, for
the purpose of applying the aforementioned ratios to complex orders
comprised of both mini-option contracts and standard option contracts,
ten (10) mini-option contracts will represent one (1) standard option
contract.
    The Exchange notes that TPHs may represent in open outcry a complex
order with any number of legs and in any ratio. However, if a complex
order does not satisfy the applicable number of legs, order ticket and
ratio requirements as set forth above, then it will not be eligible for
the complex order priority set forth in Rules 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii) or
6.45B(b)(ii).\10\ The

Exchange also notes that it does not propose to amend how complex
orders are allocated or the priority afforded to complex orders in open
outcry; it is merely modifying the requirements for a complex order to
be eligible for the open outcry complex order priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similarly, a complex order submitted for electronic
handling must satisfy the ratio and leg requirements set forth in
Rule 6.53C(a) to receive the complex order priority set forth in
that rule (which requires at least one leg of the complex order to
better the corresponding bid (offer) in the leg series by at least
one minimum increment or $0.01, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the order ticket requirements, the Exchange also
proposes to add to Rule 24.20 (pertaining to SPX Combo Orders)
Interpretation and Policy .01 to require that an SPX Combo Order \11\
for twelve (12) legs or less be entered on a single order ticket at
time of systemization. An SPX Combo Order that contains more than
twelve (12) legs may be represented and executed as a single SPX Combo
Order in accordance with Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple
order tickets and the TPH representing the SPX Combo Order identifies
for the Exchange the order tickets that are part of the same SPX Combo
Order (in a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange). The Exchange
will announce by Regulatory Circular whether it permits SPX Combo
Orders with more than 12 legs and, if so permitted, the form and manner
in which the TPH must link the multiple order tickets. The Exchanges
notes that a TPH may submit an order that does not satisfy these ticket
requirements, but such order may not be represented or executed as a
single SPX Combo Order in accordance with Rule 24.20. The Exchange also
notes that Rules 24.20 already specifies an applicable ratio (defined
by the delta as noted above), and it is proposing no changes to the
ratio through this rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An ``SPX Combo Order'' consists of an order to purchase or
sell one or more SPX option series and the offsetting number of SPX
combinations defined by the delta, where an ``SPX combination'' is a
purchase (sale) of an SPX call and sale (purchase) of an SPX put
having the same expiration date and strike price and a ``delta'' is
the positive (negative) number of SPX combinations that must be sold
(bought) to establish a market neutral hedge with one or more SPX
option series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, with respect to complex orders in classes where the COB is
available, the Exchange also proposes to make explicit the open outcry
priority applicable when there are other complex orders or quotes
represented at the same net price, whether such other orders or quotes
are in the COB or being represented in open outcry. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Rules 6.45A and 6.45B \12\ to provide that
if a complex order would trade in open outcry at the same net debit or
credit price as another complex order, priority would go first to
public customer orders in COB (with multiple public customer orders
ranked based on time), then to complex order bids and offers
represented in the trading crowd (with multiple bids and offers ranked
in accordance with the allocation principles applicable to in-crowd
market participants contained in Rule 6.45A(b)(i)(B) and (D), and Rule
6.45B(b)(i)(B) and (D), respectively), and then to all other orders and
quotes in the COB (with multiple bids and offers ranked in accordance
with the allocation algorithm in effect pursuant to Rule 6.53C).\13\
This methodology for prioritizing multiple complex orders for open
outcry trading is consistent with the methodology applicable for
prioritizing multiple simple orders for open outcry trading and how the
Exchange has interpreted and applied complex order priority.\14\ The
Exchange is merely proposing to reflect this existing interpretation
within its rule text for added clarity. The Exchange is proposing no
changes to the existing prioritization methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange may determine to make the COB available on a
class-by-class basis for products trading on the CBOE Hybrid System
platform. Because the COB functionality is not available for non-
CBOE Hybrid System classes, corresponding changes are not necessary
for Rule 6.45(e).
    \13\ The Exchange notes that, for purposes of this provision,
Voluntary Professionals and Professionals, as defined in Rules
1.1(fff) and (ggg), respectively, are treated in the same manner as
a broker-dealer in classes where the Voluntary Professional and
Professional designations are available.
    \14\ The Exchange notes that the provisions of Rule
6.45A(b)(i)(D) and 6.45B(b)(i)(D), respectively, applicable to TPHs
relying on Section 11(a)(1)(D) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') and Rule 11a1-1(T) thereunder (commonly known as
the ``G'' exemption rule'') would apply to complex orders in the
same manner as it applies to simple orders. Those rules provisions
provide that in open outcry, any TPH relying on the G exemption rule
as an exemption must yield priority to any bid (offer) at the same
price of public customer orders and broker-dealer orders resting in
the electronic book, as well as any other bids and offers that have
priority over such broker-dealer orders under those rules. Under
these provisions, a TPH relying on the G exemption rule would yield
priority to simple public customer orders and broker-dealer orders
resting in the book and complex public customer orders and broker-
dealer orders resting in the COB, as well as any other simple and
complex bids and offers that have priority over such broker-dealer
orders under those rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change makes other non-substantive,
technical changes to Rules 6.45A, 6.45B, 6.53, 6.53C, 24A.5 and 24B.5,
including deleting extra spaces, adding spaces where necessary,
correction of typos and revising rule headings to be consistent with
other headings.
    The Exchange anticipates that TPHs may desire to make enhancements
to their open outcry order management and execution systems to address
the ticket requirements for a multi-legged order to be eligible for
priority when represented and executed in open outcry.\15\ Therefore,
upon approval of this rule change filing, the Exchange will announce
the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the approval
date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following
the approval date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that it intends to enhance the Exchange-
sponsored PULSe workstation and FBW to support the entry of complex
orders with up to twelve (12) legs on a single order ticket. The
Exchange notes that TPHs will not be required to make changes to
their own or third-party vendor's order entry and execution systems.
However, to the extent a TPH wants to represent and execute a multi-
part order in open outcry as a complex order, the order must be
entered on a single order ticket and cannot exceed twelve (12) legs
(or, if the Exchange has determined to make it available, an order
for more than twelve (12) legs that is entered on multiple order
tickets, which tickets are linked in a form and manner prescribed by
the Exchange). For example, if a TPH's order entry and execution
system currently only supports the open outcry processing of a
complex order with up to four (4) legs, the system would not need to
be enhanced if the TPH does not intend to represent and execute
complex orders with more than four (4) legs. If the TPH intends to
represent and execute complex orders with more than four (4) legs
(i.e., complex orders with five (5) to twelve (12) legs), then the
TPH may need to enhance its existing system or utilize another order
entry and execution system that supports the open outcry processing
of such orders on a single order ticket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\16\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed

to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that (1) removing the
definitions of spread order, combination order, straddle order and
ratio order from Rule 6.53 and incorporating the more general
definition of a complex order (including a stock-option order (and the
elimination of a redundant definition of stock-option order) and a
security future-option order) into the Rule and (2) harmonizing rules
that reference such definitions simplifies and provides more clarity
and uniformity to the rules, which ultimately benefits investors. The
Exchange believes the proposed nonsubstantive changes to the rules,
include the alphabetization of the order type definitions, further
benefits investors, as they improve the readability of and further
simplify the rules.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
limit the eligibility of orders represented and executed in open outcry
for complex order priority to orders that satisfy the order ticket and
applicable ratio requirements will enhance the Exchange's audit trail.
An enhanced audit trail promotes transparency and aids in surveillance,
thereby protecting investors. In addition, making explicit the open
outcry priority applicable when there are other complex orders or
quotes represented at the same net price, whether such other orders or
quotes are in the COB or being represented in open outcry, provides
added clarity to the rule text in a manner that is consistent with the
existing methodology applicable for prioritizing multiple simple orders
for open outcry trading and how the Exchange has interpreted and
applied complex order priority.
    The Exchange notes that TPHs may continue to represent and execute
in open outcry a complex order with any number of legs and in any
ratio. However, if a complex order does not satisfy the applicable
ratio and order ticket requirements as set forth above, then it will
not be eligible for the complex order priority set forth in Rules
6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii) or 6.45B(b)(ii) (as proposed). The Exchange also
notes that it does not propose to amend how complex orders are
allocated or the priority afforded to complex orders in open outcry; it
is merely modifying the requirements for a complex order to be eligible
for the existing open outcry complex order priority (which the Exchange
is not proposing to change). The Exchange believes the proposed changes
will increase opportunities for execution of complex orders and lead to
tighter spreads on CBOE, which will benefit investors. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change is designed to not permit
unfair discrimination among market participants, as all market
participants may trade complex orders, and the priority eligibility
requirements apply to complex orders of all market participants.
    In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\19\ which provides that the
Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs
(and persons associated with its TPHs) with the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder and the rules of the Exchange. Enhancing the
audit trail with respect to open outcry complex order processing will
further improve the Exchange's ability to better enforce compliance by
the Exchange's TPHs (and persons associated with its TPHs) with the
Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and the rules of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change furthers the
objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of the Act, which authorizes the Exchange
to, among other things, prescribe standards of operational capability
for its TPHs. The Exchange believes the provisions imposing order
ticket requirements in order for a complex order to be eligible for
complex order priority is reasonable and sets forth appropriate system
requirements for supporting complex order processing for open outcry
trades.

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 believes that
simplifying its rules related to complex orders promotes fair and
orderly markets, as well as assists the Exchange in its ability to
effectively attract order flow and liquidity to its market, and
ultimately benefits all TPHs and all investors. Complex orders are
available to all TPHs (and all non-TPH market participants through
TPHs), and the proposed rule change, including the complex order
priority eligibility requirements, apply to all complex orders in the
same manner.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-015 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-CBOE-2014-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
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 available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-015 and should be submitted on or before
September 29, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21250 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47854-47856]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0077]

NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-03; Procedure for
Invoking Paragraph 17 of the May 4, 2016 Amendment to the November 3,
2015 Takata Consent Order

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
issuing this Enforcement Guidance Bulletin to inform the public of the
process and procedure the Agency has established in connection with
Paragraph 17 of the May 4, 2016 Amendment to the November 3, 2015
Consent Order with TK Holdings Inc., and the standards and criteria
that will guide Agency decision-making.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For legal issues: Elizabeth Mykytiuk, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NCC-100, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For general information regarding NHTSA's investigation into Takata
Air Bag Inflator ruptures and the related recalls: http://www.safercar.gov/rs/takata/index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA or Agency) is issuing this Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin (the ``Bulletin'') to inform the public of the circumstances
under which NHTSA would consider invoking Paragraph 17 of the Agency's
May 4, 2016 Amendment to the November 3, 2015 Consent Order with TK
Holdings Inc. (``Takata'') \1\ to alter the recall schedule, as well as
to provide guidance on the standards and criteria that would guide such
decision-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The November 3, 2015 Consent Order and May 4, 2016 Amendment
are available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.safercar.gov/rs/takata/index.html, under the ``Related Documents'' hyperlink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    On June 11, 2014, NHTSA opened a formal defect investigation
(Preliminary Evaluation, PE14-016) into certain Takata air bag
inflators (``inflators'') that may become over-pressurized and/or
rupture during air bag deployment, resulting in death or injury to the
driver and/or passenger. On February 24, 2015, NHTSA upgraded and
expanded this investigation (Engineering Analysis, EA15-001).
    Subsequently, Takata agreed to submit four Defect Information
Reports (DIRs) on May 18, 2014, declaring that a defect existed in
certain inflator types that were manufactured by Takata during certain
periods of time. See Recall Nos. 15E-040, 15E-041, 15E-042, and 15E-
043. Those DIRs triggered an obligation on the part of affected motor
vehicle manufacturers to conduct a recall of motor vehicles containing
the defective inflators. See 49 CFR 573.5(a).
    On November 3, 2015, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, a Consent
Order, which among other things established conditions upon which
Takata would be required to expand the scope of the defective inflator
population by filing future DIRs. Again, the filing of such DIRs by
Takata triggered an obligation by the motor vehicle manufacturers to
submit DIRs covering the affected motor vehicles and to conduct a
recall of motor vehicles in which the defective inflators are
installed. See 49 CFR 573.3(f), 573.5(a); see also Coordinated Remedy
Order at ] 46 (Nov. 3, 2015).
    On May 4, 2016, NHTSA and Takata agreed to an Amendment to the
November 3, 2015 Consent Order (the ``Amendment''), under which Takata
agreed to declare a defect in all driver and passenger inflators that
contain an ammonium nitrate-based propellant, and do not contain a
moisture-absorbing desiccant. The Amendment was based upon the findings
of three independent research organizations that most of the inflator
ruptures are associated with long-term propellant degradation caused by
years of exposure to temperature fluctuations and intrusion of moisture
present in the ambient atmosphere. See Amendment at ] 2. Based upon the
Agency's conclusions regarding the root cause of the inflator ruptures,
among other reasons, the recall is to be conducted on a rolling basis,
with Takata filing additional DIRs on the following schedule (which is
set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Amendment):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            DIR dates                  Zone A population          Zone B population         Zone C population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2016.....................  All vehicles not           All vehicles not          All vehicles not
                                    currently under recall     currently under recall    currently under recall
                                    containing non-            containing non-           containing non-
                                    desiccated frontal         desiccated frontal        desiccated frontal
                                    Takata PSAN inflators--    Takata PSAN inflators--   Takata PSAN inflators--
                                    MY 2011 & older.           MY 2008 & older.          MY 2004 & older.
December 31, 2016................  All vehicles not           All vehicles not          All vehicles not
                                    currently under recall     currently under recall    currently under recall
                                    containing non-            containing non-           containing non-
                                    desiccated frontal         desiccated frontal        desiccated frontal
                                    Takata PSAN inflators--    Takata PSAN inflators--   Takata PSAN inflators--
                                    MY 2012 & older.           MY 2009 & older.          MY 2008 & older.
December 31, 2017................  All vehicles not           All vehicles not          All vehicles not
                                    currently under recall     currently under recall    currently under recall
                                    containing non-            containing non-           containing non-
                                    desiccated frontal         desiccated frontal        desiccated frontal
                                    Takata PSAN inflators--    Takata PSAN inflators--   Takata PSAN inflators--
                                    MY 2013 & older.           MY 2010 & older.          MY 2009 & older.
December 31, 2018................  All remaining vehicles     All remaining vehicles    All remaining vehicles
                                    not currently under        not currently under       not currently under
                                    recall containing non-     recall containing non-    recall containing non-
                                    desiccated frontal         desiccated frontal        desiccated frontal
                                    Takata PSAN inflators.     Takata PSAN inflators.    Takata PSAN inflators.
December 31, 2019................  All like for like non-     All like for like non-    All like for like non-
                                    desiccated frontal         desiccated frontal        desiccated frontal
                                    Takata PSAN replacement    Takata PSAN replacement   Takata PSAN replacement
                                    parts.                     parts.                    parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Paragraph 7.a. of the Amendment, Zone A comprises
the states and U.S. territories with the greatest temperature cycling
and absolute humidity. It includes the following states and U.S.
territories: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    Zone B comprises states with moderate temperature cycling and
absolute humidity. It includes the following states: Arizona, Arkansas,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia. See Amendment at ] 7.b.
    Zone C comprises states with lower temperature cycling and absolute
humidity. It includes the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See
Amendment at ] 7.c.
    The Amendment also sets forth a procedure under which the DIR
schedule above may be modified or amended. More specifically, Paragraph
17 provides:

    Based on the presentation of additional test data, analysis, or
other relevant and appropriate evidence, by Takata, an automobile
manufacturer, or any other credible source, NHTSA may, after
consultation with Takata, alter the schedule set forth in Paragraph 14
to modify or amend a DIR or to defer certain inflator types or
vehicles, or a portion thereof, to a later DIR filing date. Any such
evidence must be submitted to NHTSA no later than one-hundred-twenty
(120) days before the relevant DIR filing date. This paragraph applies
only to the DIRs scheduled to be issued on or after December 31, 2016
under the schedule established by Paragraph 14 of this Amendment.
    The Agency believes it is important to provide additional guidance
on the process and conditions under which NHTSA would consider altering
the recall schedule to modify or amend a DIR or defer the filing of a
DIR, as well as guidance on the standards and criteria that would guide
such decision-making. This process shall not be used to expedite or
expand the DIR schedule, nor shall it be used to eliminate a population
of vehicles from the recall.

II. Process and Procedure

    A. Petition: No later than 120 days before the applicable DIR
filing date, Takata, a vehicle manufacturer, or other credible source
(the ``petitioner'') may petition the Agency for a modification or
amendment to the DIR schedule. The petition shall be in writing and
shall be directed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, with
a copy to Chief Counsel. The petition shall specify the precise
modification or amendment to the DIR schedule being requested by the
petitioner, including the affected vehicle makes, models, and model
years (the ``particular class of vehicles''). The petition shall also
set forth all data, information, and arguments of the petitioner
supporting its petition. To the extent the petitioner requests
confidential treatment under 49 CFR part 512 in connection with any
data, information, and arguments, it shall submit a publicly available
summary of such confidential materials.
    B. Public Notice and Comment: Within 14 days of receiving a
petition, NHTSA shall publish a notice of the petition in the Federal
Register. The notice shall include a brief summary of the petition, a
description of the particular class of vehicles, a statement of the
availability of the petition and other relevant information for public
inspection, and an invitation to interested persons to submit written
data, information, and arguments concerning the petition to a public
docket. The notice of the petition shall also specify the deadline for
submitting data, information, and arguments concerning the petition,
which deadline shall not be less than 14 days after the Federal
Register notice.
    C. Disposition of the Petition: After reviewing the written data,
views, and arguments from the petitioner and any interested persons, as
well as other available information, and after consulting with Takata,
the Associate Administrator for Enforcement shall make a decision
whether to grant or deny the petition. Notice of the grant or denial of
the petition shall be issued to the petitioner, and to Takata and any
affected vehicle manufacturer, no less than 45 days before the relevant
DIR filing date. Notice of the grant or denial of the petition shall
also be published in the Federal Register.
    D. Appeal: Within 14 days of notice of a grant or denial in the
Federal Register, any interested person may appeal the grant or denial
of the petition to the Administrator. An appeal shall be in writing and
shall be directed to the Administrator, with a copy to the Chief
Counsel. The Administrator will base his final decision on the data,
information, and arguments submitted in support of the petition and
during the comment period, and other available information. The final
decision will be issued no less than 5 days before the applicable DIR
filing date. Notice of final decision shall also be published in the
Federal Register.

III. Standard of Proof

    NHTSA may grant the petition if the Agency finds that the written
data, information, and arguments regarding the petition and other
available information demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that either: (i) There has not yet been, nor will be for some period of
years in the future, sufficient propellant degradation to render the
inflators contained in the particular class of vehicles unreasonably
dangerous in terms of susceptibility to rupture; or (ii) the service
life expectancy of the inflators installed in the particular class of
vehicles is sufficiently long that they will not pose an unreasonable
risk to motor vehicle safety if recalled at a later date.
    The Agency may rely on any relevant criteria in determining whether
the available evidence satisfies the standard of proof. Generally, a
petitioner may satisfy the standard of proof by submitting evidence
concerning the physical attributes of the category of inflators at
issue. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, inflator
diffusion rates, booster and propellant moisture content (over time),
wafer diameter, and closed-bomb test data. In evaluating this evidence,
the Agency will closely scrutinize the number of inflators tested, the
age of the inflators tested, and the history of the vehicles from which
the inflators were removed. A petitioner may also satisfy the standard
of proof through robust predictive modeling, which modeling shall be
independently verified by NHTSA's expert, Dr. Harold Blomquist. In all
instances, a petition will be denied if there has been a rupture
incident in the field or in testing that involves the inflator type
contained in the particular class of vehicles at issue.
    Applicability/Legal Statement: This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin
sets forth NHTSA's current interpretation and thinking on the process
and procedures under Paragraph 17 of the Amendment, and the standards
and criteria that will guide its decision-making. This Bulletin is not
a final agency action and is intended as guidance only. This Bulletin
is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party against NHTSA, the Department of
Transportation, or the United States. Moreover, the process and
procedures set forth herein do not establish any defense to any
violations of the statutes and regulations that NHTSA administers. This
Bulletin may be revised without notice to reflect changes in NHTSA's
evaluation and analysis, or to clarify and update text.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, 30162, 30166(b)(1),
30166(g)(1); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a).

    Issued: July 15, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind, Ph.D.
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17356 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33650-33652]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11972]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0439; FRL-9870-03-R9]

Determination To Defer Sanctions; California; San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an interim
final determination that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
submitted revised rules on behalf of the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District (SDCAPCD or District) that correct deficiencies in its
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) state implementation plan (SIP) provisions
concerning ozone nonattainment requirements for controlling volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from the transfer of organic compounds into
mobile transport tanks and concerning a negative declaration for non-
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) major VOC sources. This
determination is based on a proposed approval, published elsewhere in
this Federal Register, of SDCAPCD's Rule 61.2 regulating the above
source category and of the negative declaration for non-CTG major VOC
sources. The effect of this interim final determination is that the
imposition of sanctions that were triggered by a previous disapproval
by the EPA in 2020 is now deferred. If the EPA finalizes its approval
of the SDCAPCD's submissions, relief from these sanctions will become
permanent.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 3, 2022. However, comments will
be accepted on or before July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0439 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donnique Sherman, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On December 3, 2020 (85 FR 77996), the EPA issued a final partial
approval/partial disapproval for the SDCAPCD's 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone
Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for San Diego
County (2008 RACT demonstration) that had been submitted by CARB to the
EPA for approval. The 2008 RACT demonstration action addressed the
SDCAPCD's 2008 ozone standard RACT SIP requirements under the Act. In
our 2008 RACT demonstration action, we determined that while the
SDCAPCD's SIP revision submittal strengthened the SIP, the submittal
did not fully meet the requirements for RACT SIPs under the CAA. Our
2008 RACT demonstration action included a final partial disapproval
action under title I, part D of the Act, relating to requirements for
nonattainment areas. Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and our
regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, this partial disapproval action under
title I, part D started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset
sanctions 18 months after the action's effective date of January 4,
2021, and highway sanctions 6 months later.
    On December 29, 2020, CARB submitted to the EPA the SDCAPCD's 2020
RACT submittal, which addressed requirements for the 2015 ozone

standard, and also included a negative declaration adopted for non-CTG
major VOC sources for the 2008 ozone standard. On April 20, 2021, CARB
submitted to the EPA an amended Rule 61.2 that included a decrease in
the emission limit for bulk terminals to 0.08 pound per 1000 gallons.
This negative declaration and revised rule were intended to address the
partial disapproval issues under title I, part D that we identified in
our 2008 RACT demonstration action. In the Proposed Rules section of
this Federal Register, we have proposed approval of the SDCAPCD's 2020
RACT submittal's negative declaration for non-CTG major VOC sources and
Rule 61.2. Based on this proposed approval action, we are also taking
this interim final determination, effective on publication, to defer
imposition of the offset sanctions and highway sanctions that were
triggered by our 2008 RACT demonstration action, because we believe
that the 2020 RACT submittal's negative declaration for non-CTG major
VOC sources and Rule 61.2 correct the deficiencies that triggered such
sanctions.
    The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on
this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our
assessment described in this interim final determination and the
proposed full approval of the SDCAPCD Rule 61.2 and the negative
declaration for non-CTG VOC major sources with respect to the title I,
part D deficiencies identified in our 2008 RACT demonstration action,
we would take final action to lift this deferral of sanctions under 40
CFR 52.31. If no comments are submitted that change our assessment,
then the sanction clocks triggered by our 2008 RACT demonstration
action for mobile transport tanks and non-CTG major VOC sources would
be permanently terminated on the effective date of our final approval
of the SDCAPCD Rule 61.2 and negative declaration for non-CTG VOC major
sources.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section
179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval on the 2008 RACT
demonstration with respect to the requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA. This determination is based on our concurrent proposal to
approve SDCAPCD's 2020 RACT Negative Declaration for Non-CTG Major VOC
Sources submittal and Rule 61.2, which resolve the deficiencies that
triggered sanctions under section 179 of the CAA.
    Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that the 2020 RACT
submittal and Rule 61.2 address the deficiencies under part D of title
I of the CAA identified in our 2008 RACT demonstration action and is
fully approvable, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly
as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an
opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)). However, by this action, the EPA is providing the public
with a chance to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective
date, and the EPA will consider any comments received in determining
whether to reverse such action.
    The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittals and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has submitted a revision to the SIP that corrects
deficiencies under part D of the Act that were the basis for the action
that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public
interest to impose sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to
use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while the
EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the
State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this
action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day
notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to
relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action defers sanctions and imposes no additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
     Is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
     Is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA
allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than
otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding
that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The
EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section
II of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 2, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 31, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-11972 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P