[Federal Register: December 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 79367-79368]
[DOCID:fr20de10-931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 8, 2010
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2589-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits its Formula
Rate Wholesale Sales Tariff Compliance Filing, FERC Electric Tariff
Volume No 9, pursuant to Order No 714, to be effective 9/10/10.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2713-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Revisions to the PJM Rate Schedules to correct technical and
ministerial errors to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2785-004.
    Applicants: Chevron Coalinga Energy Company.
    Description: Chevron Coalinga Energy Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Chevron Coalinga Energy Company Tariff to be effective 12/7/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1873-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): BG&E submits revisions to 1st Revised Service Agmt No. 871
for technical reasons to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2131-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
MSS-3 Corrected Spindletop Compliance Filing to be effective 11/16/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2132-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 35: MSS-3 Corrected Spindletop Compliance Filing to be
effective 11/16/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2133-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
MSS-3 Corrected Spindletop Compliance Filing to be effective 11/16/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2134-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: MSS-3 Corrected Spindletop Compliance Filing to be effective 11/16/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2135-001.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
    Description: Entergy New Orleans, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35: MSS-3 Corrected Spindletop Compliance Filing to be effective 11/16/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2310-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35: Compliance filing to incorporate previously approved revisions in
Docket EL08-47 to be effective 10/26/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010
    Accession Number: 20101208-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2311-000.
    Applicants: Freedom Logistics, LLC.
    Description: Freedom Logistics, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Freedom Logistics FERC Tariff to be effective 12/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2312-000.
    Applicants: Electricity Maine, LLC.
    Description: Electricity Maine, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Electricity Maine FERC Tariff to be effective 12/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2313-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): G418 Termination to be
effective 2/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2314-000.
    Applicants: City of Pasadena, California.
    Description: City of Pasadena, California submits tariff filing per
35.1:

Baseline TO Tariff to be effective 12/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2315-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to Clarify Treatment of Load Under
Grandfathered Agreements to be effective 12/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/08/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101208-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 29, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES11-9-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Application of ITC Midwest LLC under Section 204.
    Filed Date: 12/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101207-5210..
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31841 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 								Chemical Name: Indoxacarb

								PC Code: 	067710

								DP barcode: 	351088

July 9, 2008

MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for IR-4 Petition:

		Use of Indoxacarb on Garden Beet and Bushberries

To:	Susan Stanton

Registration Division (7505P)

From:		James Lin, Acting Risk Assessment Process Leader

		Nancy Andrews, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch I

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Summary

The estimated surface water drinking water concentrations for DPX-MP062 (Indoxacarb) are:

25.1 ug /L for the 1 in 10 year annual peak concentration (acute)

 5.4 ug /L for the 1 in 10 year annual mean concentration (non-cancer chronic) and

  2.8 ug /L for the 30 year annual mean concentration (cancer chronic).

The SCI-GROW estimated ground water drinking water concentrations for DPX-MP062 are not expected to exceed 0.21 μg/L, which was based on 4 applications of 0.11 lb ai/ac per application.

Previous Drinking Water Assessment

EFED has issued a revised drinking water assessment for indoxacarb to support the Section 3 and Section 18 uses (dated: 02/01/2007, DP# 293793 and 335124).  The resulting drinking water concentration estimations are based on the cotton use due to its highest total application rate of 0.44 lb ai/ac resulting from 4 applications of 0.11 lb ai/ac.

Proposed Label Information

This IR-4 petition 8E7324 requests EFED to provide HED with estimated drinking water concentrations for tolerance purpose.  The label Indoxacarb DPX-MP062 [Avaunt® (30 WG)] targets for control of beet armyworm and garden webworm in beet (garden) production; and for control of cranberry fruitworm, cherry fruitworm and winter moth in bushberry production.  The use rate information is summarized below:

Crop	Maximum Rate per Acre per Application	Maximum Number of Applications	Minimum Interval Between Applications	Maximum Rate per Acre per Season

Beet (Garden)	0.11 lb ai/ac	4	3 days	0.44 lb ai/ac

Bushberry	0.11 lb ai/ac	4	7 days	0.44 lb ai/ac

Conclusion

The new proposed use rate for this IR-4 petition is a little bit less compared to the cotton use of 0.12 lb ai/ac per application, which has been assessed previously.  Due to the high rainfall, runoff potential of the cotton modeling scenario in Mississippi, the proposed IR-4 uses will not exceed the drinking water estimates based on cotton use, therefore, the estimated drinking water concentrations will not change with the new proposed IR-4 uses.  The results presented in the drinking water memo for DP 293793 and 335124 (dated 02/01/2007) should be used.

=

’

Ý

Þ

=

A

B

’

—

˜

Þ

õ

.

0

2

x

-Þ

0

2

x

x

”

–

˜

¬

Þ

à

è

ᘎ塨u

hXu

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66613-66614]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0098; Notice 1]

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC (CTA), has determined that
certain Continental Tire T-type spare tires do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.3(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
109, New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires. CTA has filed an
appropriate report dated August 25, 2015 and amended on October 1,
2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is November 30,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), CTA submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of CTA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 3,627 Continental
Tire CST 17 size T125/70R17 98M temporary spare tires sold to General
Motors and also in small quantities in the replacement market. These
tires were manufactured between March 18, 2012 and April 11, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: CTA explains that the noncompliance is that the
tire size designation markings on the sidewalls of the subject tires do
not contain the tire type code designator symbol from The Tire and Rim
Association yearbook as required by paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 109.
Specifically, the subject tire size reads ``125/70R17 98M'' but should
read ``T125/70R17 98M'' indicating the tire is a spare tire and for
temporary use.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 109 requires in
pertinent part:

    S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as provided in S4.3.1 and
S4.3.2 of this standard, each tire, except for those certified to
comply with S5.5 of Sec.  571.139, shall have permanently molded
into or onto both sidewalls, in letters and numerals not less than
0.078 inches high, the information shown in paragraphs S4.3(a)
through (g) of this standard. On at least one sidewall, the
information shall be positioned in an area between the maximum
section width and bead of the tire, unless the maximum section width
of the tire falls between the bead and one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire . . .
    (a) One size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric
size designations may be used; . . .

    V. Summary of CTA's Analyses: CTA stated that the only missing
marking on the sidewalls of the affected tires is the letter ``T'' as
part of the size designation.
    CTA also stated its belief that the omission of the tire size
designation markings has no impact on the operational performance or
durability of these tires or on the safety of vehicles on which these
tires may be mounted and that the affected tires cannot be confused
with normal P-metric or metric passenger tires for the following
reasons:
    1. Both sidewalls of the affected tires have permanently molded
letters that are \1/2\ inch tall with the words ``TEMPORARY USE ONLY.''
    2. Both sidewalls of the affected tires have permanently molded
letters and numerals that are \1/2\ inch tall with the words ``INFLATE
TO 420KPA (60PSI),'' as required by section S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 109.
    3. The affected tires are intended as a spare tire for the Chevy
Impala, which is equipped with four ground tires of size P235[/]55R17
98W. Thus, the ground tires are significantly different in

width (approximately four inches wider) and in diameter (approximately
three inches larger).
    The affected tires also have a starting tread depth of only \3/32\
inch, whereas a typical P-metric or metric passenger tire has a much
deeper tread depth of approximately \10/32\ inch.
    CTA notes that they are not aware of any crashes, injuries,
customer complaints or field reports associated with this
noncompliance.
    CTA informed NHTSA that it has corrected the mold at the
manufacturing plant so that no additional tires will be manufactured
with the subject noncompliance and that all remaining CTA inventory of
the subject tires in their possession have been scrapped.
    CTA stated its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
inconsequential noncompliance petitions regarding noncompliances that
they believe are similar to the subject noncompliance.
    In summation, CTA believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt CTA from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that CTA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after CTA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-27610 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64953-64957]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98387; File No. SR-ICEEU-2023-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 and
Partial Amendment No. 2, Relating to Amendments to the Outsourcing
Policy

September 14, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On July 10, 2023, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
to amend its Outsourcing Policy (to be renamed the Outsourcing and
Third Party Risk Management Policy) (the ``Outsourcing Policy''). On
July 11, 2023, ICE Clear Europe filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change to make certain changes to the Form 19b-4 and Exhibit 1A
for file no. SR-ICEEU-2023-018; \3\ and on July 24, 2023, ICE Clear
Europe filed Partial Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule

change to make a certain change to Exhibit 5 of file no. SR-ICEEU-2023-
018 \4\ (together, ``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 31, 2023.\5\
The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed rule
change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 amended and restated in its entirety the
Form 19b-4 and Exhibit 1A to correct the narrative description of
the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 1 did not change the purpose
or basis of the proposed rule change.
    \4\ Partial Amendment No. 2 amended and restated in its entirety
Exhibit 5 to correct an inadvertent omission of a single word.
Partial Amendment No. 2 did not change the purpose or basis of the
proposed rule change.
    \5\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2, Relating to Amendments to the
Outsourcing Policy, Exchange Act Release No. 97974 (July 25, 2023);
88 FR 49545 (July 31, 2023) (File No. SR-ICEEU-2023-018)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe is registered with the Commission as a clearing
agency for the purpose of clearing security-based swaps.\6\ In its role
as a clearing agency for clearing security-based swaps, ICE Clear
Europe regularly enters into arrangements with affiliates and third-
party service providers to perform certain functions or activities.
Such arrangements often come with a variety of risks, including legal,
operational, general business, and other types of risks. To reduce risk
exposure from such outsourcing arrangements, ICE Clear Europe created
its Outsourcing Policy to describe, in a consolidated document,
procedures for managing outsourcing arrangements with affiliates and
third-party service providers, including how ICE Clear Europe's Board
of Directors (``Board'') maintains oversight of these outsourcing
arrangements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules and the
Outsourcing Policy.
    \7\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear
Europe Outsourcing Policy, Exchange Act Release No. 95685 (Sept. 7,
2022); 87 FR 56129 (Sept. 13, 2022) (File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend ICE Clear Europe's Outsourcing
Policy to extend coverage to third-party service provider arrangements
that technically may not constitute outsourcing, to describe in more
detail third-party risk management, to add the execution of risk
assessments, and to update the Document Governance and Exception
Handling language, among other changes.
    As proposed, the purpose of the Outsourcing Policy would clarify
that it would extend to arrangements in which services are provided by
third parties to ICE Clear Europe, regardless of whether such services
are considered outsourcing, including to assessing the risks of such
services. The definition of ``outsourcing'' would be clarified as the
use of third-party service providers, either an external party or an
affiliate, and either directly or through sub-outsourcing, to provide a
service that would otherwise be performed by ICE Clear Europe itself
and is therefore subject to the Board's oversight. The proposed rule
change would more clearly distinguish outsourcing from a purchasing
arrangement, which would not involve an arrangement otherwise performed
by ICE Clear Europe and therefore typically would not be subject to
Board oversight. Regarding outsourced activities, the Outsourcing
Policy would explicitly state that ICE Clear Europe would remain
responsible for discharging its obligations, the outsourcing
arrangement would not result in the delegation of ICE Clear Europe's
responsibility, and the outsourced activities would conform to the same
standards that would be required if the activities were completed
internally.
    Under the proposed rule change, the Outsourcing Policy would more
clearly distinguish between affiliates and external third-party service
providers by adding a definition of the term ``third party,'' which
would include any organization (whether or not affiliated) that has
entered into a business relationship or contract with ICE Clear Europe
to provide products, services, processes, activities or business
functions. The use of external third parties (i.e., those not
affiliated with ICE Clear Europe in any way) would be managed
consistently at the group level through the existing Vendor Management
Policy (``VMP''). The proposed rule change would more clearly describe
current practice under the Outsourcing Policy by stating that
outsourcing through affiliates typically has a lower residual risk
profile because, among listed reasons in the existing Policy, the
affiliates would have a similar higher standard of operational
resilience (rather than referring to business continuity resilience)
and ICE Clear Europe would have greater influence (not just control)
over the operation of the affiliate's services.
    The proposed rule change would add detail to existing statements in
the Outsourcing Policy about the objective of and processes for
entering into different types of contracting arrangements. Rather than
covering solely outsourcing arrangements, the objective would extend to
utilizing service providers more generally. The amended Outsourcing
Policy would clarify the process of making assessments of service
providers in various situations, such as regulated parties and parties
in different jurisdictions; the management of outsourcing; and
considerations about conflicts of interest and independent audit
rights. The Outsourcing Policy would continue to reference ICE Clear
Europe's Outsourcing Operating Manual, albeit renamed to cover risk
management of additional third-party service providers, rather than
just outsourcing arrangements. The Outsourcing Policy would state that
contracting with third parties is covered consistently at a group level
under the VMP, and would clarify, consistent with current practice,
that ICE Clear Europe would use the VMP process as an input for the
risk-based assessment of each service provider. ICE Clear Europe, where
appropriate, would make external third parties aware of relevant
internal policies so that they may gain a better understanding of ICE
Clear Europe's regulatory obligations and expected service levels. When
contracting with affiliates, ICE Clear Europe's relevant assessment
would be made in accordance with its ordinary governance practices, and
not necessarily by the senior management. As is current practice, ICE
Clear Europe follows its Conflicts of Interest Policy when managing any
potential conflicts of interests as a result of its service
arrangements, but the proposed rule change would add an explicit
reference to the Conflicts of Interest Policy. An additional assessment
would be added with respect to cloud outsourcing, where ICE Clear
Europe would consider, understand, and manage any risks related to
Clearing Members connecting to its services via cloud service
providers.
    The proposed rule change would add a new Risk Assessments
subsection to the processes for entering into different types of
contracting arrangements that would set out the proportional risk
assessment that would be performed on a service provider, regardless of
whether the proposed arrangement falls within the definition of
outsourcing, in order to identify, measure, and mitigate risks. The
Risk Assessments subsection would include but would not be limited to
certain considerations, such as whether the service is a critical or
important function or a dependence to the delivery of one of ICE Clear
Europe's services, whether the activity is outsourcing, whether the
service relies on cloud-based technology that may pose new or
additional risks, whether the service

provider is an external third party or an affiliate, the legal
jurisdiction of the service provider, conflicts of interest,
operational resilience considerations, data security, exit plans,
contractual terms, and availability of alternative or back-up
providers. For outsourced or critical non-outsourced services, the risk
assessment would be performed at least annually, and on an ad-hoc basis
following a material incident or service disruption event or material
service agreement breach. Such risk assessments would be required to
include a review of the service provider's performance against the
agreed service levels. The responsibilities of executing risk
assessments and related testing would be required to be overseen by ICE
Clear Europe's Chief Operating Officer or the COO's delegate, with
ownership of each service and the related resiliency arrangements
resting with the relevant Head of Department.
    The proposed rule change would extend existing provisions about the
identification of critical or important functions to acquired services
generally, rather than applying only to outsourcing, as is currently
written. The proposed rule change would clarify that in identifying
critical or important functions, ICE Clear Europe would consider the
continuity of its important business services or operation as a CCP
that could threaten its financial stability or impact its
resolvability. As proposed, a third party would be treated as critical
if it is contracted to perform such a critical function, with the
determination of criticality to be reassessed on at least an annual
basis. The Outsourcing Policy would clarify that any outsourcing of
critical or important functions could impact ICE Clear Europe's
operational resilience measures more generally, rather than affecting
the narrower category of business continuity measures. Exit plans for
critical and important functions would be required to be tested
periodically. As part of its operational resilience framework, ICE
Clear Europe would examine purchased services, as well as outsourced or
sub-outsourced services, that are a dependence for its important
business services. Additional language would require that the
operational resilience framework shall include extreme but plausible
test scenarios relating to the disruption of critical third-party
services.
    Under the proposed rule change, the Outsourcing Policy would amend
the discussion of additional considerations of particular importance to
ICE Clear Europe to ensure that considerations would be given to
important business services and critical functions that are affected by
third party service arrangements, including with respect to business
continuity arrangements, incident management responsiveness and
reporting, independent assurances, redundancies, and notice periods and
exit strategies. A new subsection detailing Contractual Agreements
would be added, specifying that for outsourcing arrangements in
particular, ICE Clear Europe's Legal team would review any written
service agreements to confirm the inclusion of all relevant contractual
safeguards so that ICE Clear Europe could monitor relevant risks,
regulatory requirements, and expectations. ICE Clear Europe would look
to ensure that the agreements outline the rights, obligations, and
responsibilities of all the parties, and include provisions associated
with data security; access, audit and information rights; sub-
outsourcing; service resilience; service levels; incident management;
termination; and exit plans. Arrangements for purchased services would
be similarly reviewed, but the Outsourcing Policy would acknowledge
that some purchased services may be subject to non-negotiable terms set
by the third party, which would be considered during the pre-execution
risk assessment phase. The new Contractual Agreements subsection also
would require that ICE Clear Europe periodically exercise its audit
rights, as appropriate, regarding critical outsourcing arrangements,
and that this may include on-site visits.
    The proposed rule change would revise provisions related to Board
oversight to provide that the Board must approve new or materially
amended outsourcing arrangements. Certain clarifications would be made
to the requirements for the annual outsourcing assessment report to be
prepared by the Chief Operating Officer, including the addition of a
summary of critical non-outsourcing services received. The proposed
rule change would add a new subsection on regulatory engagement,
setting out that ICE Clear Europe shall engage with regulatory
authorities before executing or materially amending a critical service
arrangement, regardless of whether it falls within the definition of
outsourcing, with due regard to relevant regulatory requirements or
expectations.
    Lastly, the proposed rule change would revise provisions related to
document governance, breach management, and exception handling, to
ensure consistency with other ICE Clear Europe policies. As proposed,
the document owner identified by ICE Clear Europe would be responsible
for ensuring that the Outsourcing Policy remains up-to-date and
reviewed in accordance with the internal governance processes. Document
reviews would be conducted by the document owner and related staff,
with sign off by the head of department and the Chief Risk Officer, or
their respective delegates. Document reviews would encompass at the
minimum regulatory compliance, documentation and purpose,
implementation, use and open items from previous validations or
reviews. Results of the review would be reported to the Executive Risk
Committee or, in certain cases, to the Model Oversight Committee. The
document owner would aim to remediate the findings, complete internal
governance, and receive regulatory approvals before the next annual
review is due. The document owner also would be responsible for
reporting any material breaches or deviations to the Head of
Department, Chief Risk Officer and Head of Regulation and Compliance in
order to determine if further escalation is required. The Outsourcing
Policy would state explicitly that changes to it would have to be
approved in accordance with ICE Clear Europe's governance process and
would take effect following completion of required internal and
regulatory approvals. Exceptions to the Outsourcing Policy likewise
would be approved according to the governance processes for approvals
of changes to the Outsourcing Policy.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\8\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act,\9\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(3)(i) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and (e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements,

contracts, and transactions.\11\ As noted above, the proposed rule
change would revise ICE Clear Europe's Outsourcing Policy to expand its
application to a wider variety of affiliated and third party service
arrangements, rather than solely covering outsourcing, as well as
clarify and add to existing provisions that govern agreements for
performing certain functions and activities. Some of these functions
and activities relate to ICE Clear Europe's operations and business,
while others may have to do with its clearance and settlement
obligations. As proposed, the Outsourcing Policy would provide greater
clarity as to the processes for entering into different types of
contracting arrangements; and add detailed and, where applicable,
annual risk assessments of potential service providers. Such detailed
risk assessments would include considerations of whether the service is
a critical or important function or a dependence to the delivery of one
of ICE Clear Europe's services, among other things. The proposed rule
change also would clarify provisions about the identification of
critical or important functions, including that in identifying such
functions, ICE Clear Europe would consider the continuity of its
important business services or operation as a CCP that could threaten
its financial stability or impact its resolvability. Additional
language on Contractual Agreements would more clearly guide ICE Clear
Europe in making sure that service agreements outline the rights,
obligations, and responsibilities of all involved parties, and include
provisions regarding service levels, service resilience, and incident
management, among others. Taken together, these amendments would
clarify how ICE Clear Europe can continue to meet its security-based
swap obligations and help prevent service interruptions through
carefully drafted and managed service agreements with third parties or
affiliates, thus promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable,
derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, as applicable, to provide for
governance arrangements that specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, the Outsourcing Policy would clarify, in various
provisions throughout the document, the responsibilities, ownership,
and reporting obligations of certain personnel and departments in
relation to risk management of service arrangements. For example, the
proposed rule change would more clearly distinguish between
outsourcing, which is subject to Board oversight, and purchasing
arrangements, which are not. The Board would additionally and
explicitly be responsible for the approval of new or materially amended
outsourcing arrangements. When contracting with affiliates, ICE Clear
Europe's relevant assessment would be made in accordance with its
ordinary governance practices, and not necessarily by the senior
management. The responsibilities of executing detailed risk assessments
and related testing would be overseen by ICE Clear Europe's Chief
Operating Officer or delegate, with ownership of each service and the
related resiliency arrangements resting with the relevant Head of
Department. The proposed Outsourcing Policy specifies that the Legal
team would be responsible for drafting and/or reviewing written service
agreements to ensure that relevant contractual safeguards are in place.
New provisions would be added to ensure appropriate document governance
and exception handling. Overall, the proposed rule change inserted and
clarified the decision-making responsibilities and reporting chains of
command with respect to a variety of aspects of the Outsourcing Policy,
thus providing for governance arrangements that specify clear and
direct lines of responsibility.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to, as applicable, maintain a sound risk management
framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity,
operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks
that arise in or are borne by ICE Clear Europe, which includes risk
management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify,
measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are
borne by ICE Clear Europe, that are subject to review on a specified
periodic basis and approved by ICE Clear Europe's board of directors
annually.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed revisions to the existing
Outsourcing Policy not only would extend the scope of its application
beyond traditional outsourcing arrangements to more comprehensively
capture other types of service agreements with similar risks, but also
would detail the factors against which risk assessments and contractual
agreements are to be made and monitored, with existing relevant
provisions for the Board's annual review of the Outsourcing Policy. As
noted above, the new Risk Assessments subsection would require ICE
Clear Europe to consider, among other things, whether the service is a
critical or important function or a dependence to the delivery of one
of ICE Clear Europe's services, whether the service relies on cloud-
based technology that may pose new or additional risks, conflicts of
interest, and data security. Likewise, the newly added Contractual
Agreements subsection requires such contracts address data security;
access, audit and information rights; and incident management, among
other things. Overall, these considerations touch upon the various
risks that may emerge when contracting with affiliates or third parties
for services and by addressing them in detail in the proposed revisions
to the Outsourcing Policy, the Commission believes that ICE Clear
Europe is strengthening its ability to identify, monitor, and measure
the risks related to such arrangements.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act,\17\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) and 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) and 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(3)(i).

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

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2023-018), be, and hereby
is, approved.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \20\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20306 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3447]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0214; FRL-8514-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; San
Manuel Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for
Redesignation to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the San
Manuel Area in Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona, as a revision to the
Arizona state implementation plan, and to grant the request submitted
by the State to redesignate this area from nonattainment to attainment
of the national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) for the San Manuel SO2 nonattainment area.
EPA is proposing this action in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0580, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-

line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marty Robin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3961<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, we are taking direct final action to approve the
maintenance plan for the San Manuel SO2 nonattainment area
and to approve the State of Arizona's request to redesignate the San
Manuel area from nonattainment to attainment. We are taking these
actions without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions
are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the
comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final rule in this Federal Register.

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

    Dated: December 20, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-804 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies,

EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP)
conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing
that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit
systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
    On December 22, 2014, Pennsylvania submitted a SIP revision that
contains the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad
mobile source budgets for Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland
Counties and portions of Allegheny, Armstrong, Green and Lawrence
Counties. Pennsylvania did not provide emission budgets for
SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it concluded,
consistent with the presumptions regarding these precursors in the
Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which
predated and were not disturbed by the litigation on the 1997
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that emissions of these
precursors from motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the
Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity
regulations to implement the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July
2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6,
2005). The D.C. Circuit Court's January 2013 decision does not affect
EPA's proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Area. The MVEBs are
presented in Table 10.

Table 10--MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-
                         Hour PM2.5 NAAQS in TPY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Year                            PM2.5      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................       700    17,584
2025................................................       537    10,709
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the
PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIPs will achieve
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for
determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1)
Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the
public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment
period; and (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is also initiating the
process for determining whether or not the MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. The publication of this rulemaking
starts a 30-day public comment period on the adequacy of the submitted
MVEBs. This comment period is concurrent with the comment period on
this proposed action and comments should be submitted to the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA may choose to make its determination on the
adequacy of the budgets either in the final rulemaking on this
maintenance plan and redesignation request or by informing Pennsylvania
of the determination in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal
Register and posting a notice on EPA's adequacy Web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For additional information on the adequacy process, please
refer to 40 CFR 93.118(f) and the discussion of the adequacy process
in the preamble to the 2004 final transportation conformity rule.
See 69 FR at 40039-40043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and finds that the submitted MVEBs are
consistent with the maintenance plan and that the budgets meet the
criteria for adequacy and approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
the Pittsburgh Area for transportation conformity purposes. Additional
information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the
Adequacy Findings TSD dated April 23, 2015, available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request to redesignate
the Pittsburgh Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated
Pennsylvania's redesignation request and determined that upon approval
of the 2007 and 2011 comprehensive emissions inventories for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, proposed
as part of this rulemaking action, it would meet the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The monitoring
data demonstrates that the Pittsburgh Area attained as determined by
EPA in a prior rulemaking and for reasons discussed herein, that it
will continue to attain both NAAQS. Final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the Pittsburgh
Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh Area as a revision to
the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA as described previously in this proposed rulemaking. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 and 2011 comprehensive
emissions inventories as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and
2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Pittsburgh Area
for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule proposing to approve Pennsylvania's
redesignation request, maintenance plan, 2007 and 2011 comprehensive
emissions inventories for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively, and MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes for the Pittsburgh Area for both NAAQS, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 11, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-12237 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38345-38349]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15720]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72499; File No. SR-C2-2014-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Exchange's Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism

June 30, 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 June 20, 2014, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism
rule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 8.12. Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism

    Each Market-Maker who is obligated to provide and maintain
continuous electronic quotes pursuant to Rule 8.5, or the
Participant organization with which the Market-Maker is associated,
may establish parameters by which the Exchange will activate the
Quote Risk Monitor (``QRM'') Mechanism. The functionality of the QRM
Mechanism that is available to Market-Makers [that use the QRM
Mechanism shall specify] includes, for each such option class in
which the Market-Maker is engaged in trading[,]: (i) A maximum
number of contracts for such option class (the ``Contract Limit'')
and a rolling time period in milliseconds within which such Contract
Limit is to be measured (the ``Measurement Interval'')[.]; (ii) a
maximum cumulative percentage that the Market-Maker is willing to
trade (the ``Cumulative Percentage Limit''), where the cumulative
percentage is the sum of the percentages of the original quoted size
of each size of each series that traded, and a Measurement Interval;
and (iii) the maximum number of series for which either side of the
quote is fully traded (the ``Number of Series Fully Traded'') and a
Measurement Interval. This functionality is optional and Market-
Makers are not required to set parameters for the aforementioned QRM
Mechanism functions.
    When the Exchange determines that the Market-Maker has traded
[more than] at least the Contract Limit or Cumulative Percentage
Limit for such option class during any rolling Measurement Interval,
or has traded at least the Number of Series Fully Traded on an
option class during any rolling Measurement Interval, the QRM
Mechanism shall cancel all electronic quotes [that are] being
disseminated with respect to that Market-Maker in that option class
and any other classes with the same underlying security until the
Market-Maker refreshes those electronic quotes. Such action by the
Exchange is referred to herein as a QRM Incident. Once the QRM
Mechanism is triggered, all counters that determine whether the QRM
Mechanism is triggered and a QRM Incident occurs will be reset for
all classes for which quotes were canceled for all parties for whom
such quotes were canceled.
    A Market-Maker or a Participant organization may also specify a
maximum number of QRM Incidents on an Exchange-wide basis. When the
Exchange determines that such Market-Maker or Participant
organization has reached its QRM Incident limit during any rolling
Measurement Interval, the QRM Mechanism shall cancel all of the
Market-Maker's or Participant organization's electronic quotes and
Market-Maker orders resting in the Book in all option classes on the
Exchange and prevent the Market-Maker or Participant organization
from sending additional quotes or orders to the Exchange until the
Market-Maker or Participant organization reactivates its ability to
send quotes or orders in a manner prescribed by the Exchange. Once
the QRM Mechanism is triggered and quotes and orders are cancelled,
all counters that determine whether the QRM Mechanism is triggered
and a QRM Incident occurs will be reset for all parties for whom the
QRM Mechanism was triggered and for all classes for which quotes and
orders were canceled. If the Exchange cancels all of the Market-
Maker's or Participant organization's electronic quotes and Market-
Maker orders resting in the Book, and the Market-Maker or
Participant organization does not reactivate its ability to send
quotes or orders, the block will be in effect only for the
organization does not reactivate its ability to send quotes or
orders, the block will be in effect only for the trading day that
the Market-Maker or Participant organization reached its QRM
Incident limit. Market-Makers and Participant organizations are not
required to set parameters for the Exchange-wide QRM.
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also 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 operation of the Exchange's Quote Risk Monitor (``QRM'')
Mechanism is codified in Rule 8.12. The purpose of this proposed rule
change is to add three new functions to the QRM Mechanism to help
Market-Makers and Participant organizations control the risk of
multiple, nearly simultaneous executions across related option series.
The use of the new functions is voluntary. The proposed rule change
also makes clear that the Participant organization with which a Market-
Maker is associated (as well as the individual Market-Maker) may
establish parameters by which the Exchange will activate the QRM
Mechanism for the Market-Maker (the current rule text only explicitly
permits Market-Makers to establish such parameters). The Exchange also
proposes to make some changes to the Rule 8.12 text to make such rule
more readable in conjunction with the other changes proposed herein.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the beginning
of the second sentence of Rule 8.12, which reads ``Market-Makers
that use the QRM Mechanism shall specify, for each such option class
in which the Market-Maker is engaged in trading, a maximum number of
contracts for such option class (the ``Contract Limit'') and a
rolling time period in seconds within which such Contract Limit is
to be measured (the ``Measurement Interval'')'' to read: ``The
functionality of the QRM Mechanism that is available to Market-
Makers includes, for each such option class in which the Market-
Maker is engaged in trading: (i) A maximum number of contracts for
such option class (the ``Contract Limit'') and a rolling time period
in milliseconds within which such Contract Limit is to be measured
(the ``Measurement Interval'').'' The Exchange's systems will allow
Market-Makers to set the Measurement Interval in milliseconds (as
opposed to seconds), so the Exchange proposes to provide this more
precise option to Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first new function available to Market-Makers allows each
Market-Maker the ability to specify a maximum cumulative percentage
that the Market-Maker is willing to trade (the ``Cumulative Percentage
Limit''). Under the proposal, the cumulative percentage is the sum of
the percentages of the original quoted size of each side of each series
within a class that traded, and a rolling time period in milliseconds
within which such Cumulative Percentage Limit is to be measured (the
``Measurement Interval''). When the QRM Mechanism determines that the
Market-Maker has traded at least the Cumulative Percentage Limit for
any option class during any rolling Measurement Interval, the QRM
Mechanism will automatically cancel all of the electronic quotes being
disseminated with respect to that Market-Maker in that option class and
any other classes with the same underlying security until the Market-
Maker refreshes those electronic quotes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the words ``more than''
from the specification that ``When the Exchange determines that the
Market-Maker has traded more than the Contract Limit or Cumulative
Percentage Limit for such option class during any rolling
Measurement Interval, or has traded at least the Number of Series
Fully Traded during any rolling Measurement Interval, the QRM
Mechanism shall cancel all electronic quotes that are being
disseminated with respect to that Market-Maker in that option class
and any other classes with the same underlying security until the
Market-Maker refreshes those electronic quotes'' and replace ``more
than'' with the words ``at least.'' This is because the QRM
Mechanism is triggered (and quotes are canceled) at the moment when
the Market-Maker trades the Contract Limit or Cumulative Percentage
Limit (as opposed to when the Market-Maker has traded more than
Contract Limit or Cumulative Percentage Limit). The Exchange also
proposes to delete the words ``that are'' from the above statement
for reasons of grammatical simplicity.

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

    By way of example, assume a Market-Maker is quoting the following
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
series in a class:

 Series A Quote: 1.00 - 1.20 50 x 50
 Series B Quote: 2.00 - 2.20 75 x 75
 Series C Quote: 3.00 - 3.20 100 x 100

    If the Cumulative Percentage Limit is set at 150% for the Market-
Maker and an order to buy 40 contracts of Series A is received, the
series percentage would be 80% (i.e., 40/50). The cumulative percentage
would also be 80%. If a second order to sell 25 contracts of Series B
is received, the series percentage would be 33% (i.e., 25/75). The
cumulative percentage would now be 113% (i.e., 80 + 33 = 113). If a
third order to buy 70 contracts of Series C is received, the series
percentage would be 70% (i.e., 70/100). The cumulative percentage would
now be 183% (i.e., 113 + 70 = 183). Since 183% exceeds the Cumulative
Percentage Limit of 150%, the Market-Maker's quotes in the class, and
any class with the same underlying security, would be cancelled. This
cancellation, however, would not occur until after execution of the
third order. Due to firm quote obligations rules, the QRM Mechanism
will not cancel quotes (and in the case of an Exchange-wide QRM
Incident, orders) until after the execution of the order that caused
the triggering of the QRM Mechanism. Note that percentages are added to
one another, regardless of the denominator.
    Percentages are also calculated based on the original quote size,
not the remaining quote size. Using the quotes set forth above as an
example, if an order to buy 40 contracts of Series A is received, the
series percentage would be 80% (i.e., 40/50). The cumulative percentage
would also be 80%. If a second order to sell 25 contracts of Series B
is received, the series percentage would be 33% (i.e., 25/75). The
cumulative percentage would then be 113% (i.e., 80 + 33 = 113). If a
third order to buy 10 contracts of Series A is received, the series
percentage would be 20% (i.e., 10/50). The cumulative percentage would
then be 133% (i.e., 113 + 20 = 133). If a fourth order to buy 70
contracts of Series C is received, the series percentage would be 70%
(i.e., 70/100). The cumulative percentage would then be 203% (i.e., 133
+ 70 = 203).
    The proposed rule change adds a second new function to the QRM
Mechanism that would allow each Market-Maker to specify the maximum
number of series for which either side of the quote is fully traded
(the ``Number of Series Fully Traded'') and a Measurement Interval.
When the QRM Mechanism determines that the Market-Maker has traded at
least the Number of Series Fully Traded for any option class during any
rolling Measurement Interval, the QRM Mechanism will automatically
cancel all of the Market-Maker's electronic quotes being disseminated
in that option class and any other classes with the same underlying
security until the Market-Maker refreshes those electronic quotes.
    To illustrate this functionality, assume that a Market-Maker is
quoting the following series in a class:

 Series A Quote: 1.00 - 1.20 50 x 50
 Series B Quote: 2.00 - 2.20 75 x 75
 Series C Quote: 3.00 - 3.20 100 x 100

If the Number of Series Fully Traded is set at two, and an order to buy
50 contracts of Series A is received, the number of series traded in
full will be one. If a second order to sell 25 contracts of Series B is
received, the number of series traded in full will still be one because
Series B did not trade in full. If a third order to buy 100 contracts
of Series C is received, the number of series traded in full will then
be two. Since two meets the parameter set for Number of Series Fully
Traded, the Market-Maker's quotes in that class (and any other classes
with the same underlying security) would be cancelled.
    Whenever one of the QRM functions (i.e., Contract Limit, Cumulative
Percentage Limit or Number of Series Fully Traded) has been triggered
and the QRM Mechanism automatically cancels all of the Market-Maker's
electronic quotes in all series of that option class (and any other
classes with the same underlying security), such action by the Exchange
shall be termed a ``QRM Incident''. Both of the new functionalities
described above (along with the already-existing Contract Limit QRM
functionality) are optional and Market-Makers are not required to set
parameters for the aforementioned QRM Mechanism functions.
    The Exchange has above proposed that, when the QRM Mechanism
automatically cancels all of a Market-Maker's electronic quotes in an
option class, the Exchange will also cancel all of the Market-Maker's
electronic quotes in any other classes with the same underlying
security. The purpose of this is because the risk involved in trading
beyond a Market-Maker's risk profile extends to classes that have the
same underlying security (since often the only difference between such
classes is the multiplier of number of units of the underlying
security).
    Finally, the proposed amendment adds a third function that allows
the Exchange to cancel all quotes and orders of a Market-Maker or
Participant Organization once a specified number of QRM Incidents has
been reached. Under this proposed functionality, a Market-Maker or a
Participant organization may specify a maximum number of QRM Incidents
with respect to all QRM Functions (i.e., Contract Limit, Cumulative
Percentage Limit and Number of Series Fully Traded) and a Measurement
Interval on an Exchange-wide basis. When the Exchange determines that
such Market-Maker or Participant organization has reached its QRM
Incident limit during any rolling Measurement Interval, the QRM
Mechanism shall cancel all of the Market-Maker's or Participant
organization's electronic quotes and Market-Maker orders resting in the
Book in all option classes on the Exchange and prevent a Market-Maker
or Participant organization from sending additional quotes or orders to
the Exchange until the Market-Maker or Participant organization
reactivates its ability to send quotes or orders in a manner prescribed
by the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange will announce such manner to Trading Permit
Holders via Regulatory Circular. The current plan for such
reactivation is for the Market-Maker or TPH Organization to contact
the Exchange's Help Desk to request reactivation, though the
Exchange is examining the possibility of creating a systematized
manner for Market-Makers or TPH organizations to reactivate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the QRM Mechanism is triggered and quotes (and in the case of
an Exchange-wide cancellation, orders) are cancelled, all counters that
determine whether the QRM Mechanism is triggered and a QRM Incident
occurs will be reset for all classes for which quotes (and in the case
of an Exchange-wide cancellation, orders) were canceled for all parties
for whom such quotes (and in the case of an Exchange-wide cancellation,
orders) were canceled. This means that, if the QRM Mechanism is
triggered due to a party's reaching the Contract Limit, Cumulative
Percentage Limit, or Number of Series Fully Traded for a class, and
quotes (and in the case of an Exchange-wide cancellation, orders) are
canceled, the number of contracts traded in all classes for which
quotes and orders were canceled would be reset to zero, the cumulative
percentage for all classes for which quotes and orders were canceled
would be reset to zero, and the number of series that are fully traded
for all classes for which quotes and orders were canceled would be
reset to zero. If the Exchange cancels all of the Market-Maker's or
Participant

organization's electronic quotes and Market-Maker orders resting in the
Book, and the Market-Maker or Participant organization does not
reactivate its ability to send quotes or orders, the block will be in
effect only for the trading day that the Market-Maker or Participant
organization reached its QRM Incident limit.
    As with the Contract Limit, Cumulative Percentage Limit or Number
of Series Fully Traded QRM functions, Market-Makers and Participant
organizations are not required to set parameters for the Exchange-wide
QRM. All QRM Mechanism functionalities are currently optional.
    The Exchange represents that it has the systems capacity to permit
the operation of these enhanced QRM Mechanism functions. The Exchange
does note that, in a situation in which the QRM Mechanism is triggered,
and quotes (and in the case of an Exchange-wide cancellation, orders)
must be canceled for multiple classes related to the same underlying
security or across multiple business clusters,\6\ it may take a brief
period for such cancellation to occur (during which period orders may
execute against such quotes and orders; this functionality will not
violate the Exchange's firm quote rules). The Exchange will use best
efforts to cancel such quotes and orders as rapidly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange's systems group various classes into different
business clusters for systems purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ 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) \9\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that investors and market
participants will benefit from the proposed new functionality of the
QRM Mechanism. Market-Makers are vulnerable to the risk that, through
an error in pricing or due to market events, they will receive
multiple, automatic executions at disadvantageous or erroneous prices
before they can adjust their quotes. Without adequate risk management
tools such as the QRM, Market-Makers could widen their quotes, quote
less aggressively or limit their quote size. Such actions may undermine
the quality of the markets available to customers and other market
participants.
    Accordingly, with the enhancements proposed by the Exchange to QRM,
the use of the QRM Mechanism will encourage more aggressive and
narrower quoting, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, more effectively protecting investors and the public
interest. In addition, providing Market-Makers with more tools for
managing risk will facilitate transactions in securities because, as
noted above, the quotes of market makers will be more reliable and
could help prevent erroneous orders and transactions. As a result, the
new functionality for the QRM Mechanism has the potential to promote
just and equitable principles of trade. Also, the proposed changes do
not change to whom any aspects of the QRM Mechanism applies, as the
proposed changes apply to all market participants to whom the QRM
Mechanism previously applied.

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. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the functions of the QRM Mechanism promote fair and
orderly markets.
    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the use of the QRM
Mechanism including the new enhancements is voluntary. Further, the
proposed changes do not change to whom any aspects of the QRM Mechanism
applies, as the proposed changes apply to all market participants to
whom the QRM Mechanism previously applied. Similarly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, again, the use of the
QRM Mechanism including the new enhancements is voluntary. Moreover,
the proposed enhancements to the QRM Mechanism apply only to trading on
C2. To the extent that the proposed changes may make C2 a more
attractive trading venue for market participants on other exchanges,
such market participants may elect to become C2 market participants.

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

    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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2014-012 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-C2-2014-012. 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-C2-2014-012 and should be
submitted on or before July 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15720 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49158-49159]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-75]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Wing
Aviation, LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0835
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0835.
    Petitioner: Wing Aviation, LLC.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: 43.2(a)(2); 43.3(a), (j), and (k)(1);
43.7(d); 43.9(d); 43.10(c)(5) and (d); 91.119(b) and (c); 91.121;
91.126(d); 91.127(c); 91.129(c) and (d); 91.130(c) and (d);
91.131(a)(1), (b), (c)(2), and (d); 91.144(a); 91.151(a); 91.155(a) and
(c); 91.167(a)(3); 91.203(a)(1); 91.205(a), (b)(1) through (4), (b)(7),
(b)(9), (b)(11) and (b)(12), and (c)(1) through (c)(4); 91.209(a)(1);
91.213(a) through (c); 91.215(b)(1) and (2); 91.225(b), (d)(1) and (2),
and (f); 119.71(b), (d) and (e); 135.25(a)(1); 135.63(c) and (d);
135.79; 135.93; 135.109(b); 135.149(a); 135.161; 135.179(a);
135.203(a); 135.205(a); 135.209(a); 135.227(a) through (c), (e), and
(f); 135.243(b)(1) through (3); 135.267; 135.337(b)(5) through (7);
135.337(c)(5) and (e); 135.338(b)(5) and (6); 135.339(e)(3) and (4);
135.340(e)(3) and (4); 135.341(b)(2) through (4); 135.415(a), (b), and
(d); 135.417; 135.423(c); 135.429(a); 135.435; 135.437(b);
135.439(a)(2); 135.443(b)(3); and 135.501(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Wing Aviation, LLC (Wing) applies for
an exemption to allow it to conduct part 119 air carrier operations for
compensation or hire under part 135 using small unmanned aircraft
systems (sUAS). Specifically, Wing seeks permission to conduct sUAS air
carrier operations for commercial package delivery in the United
States.

[FR Doc. 2018-21206 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P