[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18288-18290]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7279]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66641; File No. SR-CME-2012-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Relating to Interest Rate Swaps Clearing

March 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 8, 2012, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which items
have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing this
Notice and Order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons and to approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to amend rules related to its interest rate swaps and
interest rate futures currency businesses by establishing a portfolio
margining program for proprietary portfolios containing interest rate
swaps and futures positions. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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 III below. CME 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 Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO'')
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and currently
operates a substantial business clearing both interest rate swaps
(``IRS'') and interest rate futures contracts. The changes that are the
subject of this filing are proposed rules that would establish a
portfolio margining program for proprietary portfolios containing IRS
and interest rate futures positions. More specifically, the proposed
changes include: new rules regarding portfolio margining; amendments to
existing CME rules relating to its IRS Guaranty Fund Allocation rules;
IRS Guaranty Fund Application rule amendments; and amendments to rules
dealing with outsourcing to third parties. CME will also make
corresponding changes to its Manual of Operations for CME Cleared
Interest Rate Swaps. The specific rule amendments are discussed in more
detail below.
    CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed changes that are
the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC. CME
expects that the proposed changes will be effective with the CFTC as of
March 14, 2012. As described more below, CME believes there is good
cause for the Commission to grant approval for the proposed rule
changes on an accelerated basis so that they become effective with the
Commission as of March 30, 2012.
1. Portfolio Margining Among Eligible Futures Products and IRS;
Comingling of Related Positions
    The proposed CME rule amendments would establish a portfolio
margining program (``Program'') for portfolios containing IRS and
Interest Rate Futures positions in order for eligible clearing members
to receive risk offsets across CME's listed interest rate futures and
cleared interest rate swap product suite. These amendments will appear
in CME Rule 8G831 and certain related changes to existing CME Rule 802.
    To participate in the Program a Clearing Member must under the
proposed rules be both an IRS Clearing Member and a CME Clearing
Member. The listed interest rate products that will be eligible for
this program will be those with price risks that are

significantly and reliably correlated and initially will be Eurodollar
and Treasury futures. Additionally, under the proposed rules, the CME
Clearing House has the right to ask a participant to move futures
positions in eligible products back to the participant's futures
account if it is not risk reducing.
    The 99% 5-day Historical VaR margin model with EWMA weighting that
is currently used for IRS products will be extended to include the same
level of coverage for commingled portfolios, and the existing default
management process for interest rate swaps will be extended to
portfolios which have commingled positions. Any losses for commingled
portfolios exceeding the margin on hand of a defaulted member will be
backed by CME's financial safeguards package for Interest Rate Swaps.
2. CME Rule 8G07.1--Changes to IRS Guaranty Fund Allocation
    CME is also proposing to implement certain amendments to CME Rule
8G07.1 that would include changes to the allocation of the IRS Guaranty
Fund among IRS Clearing Members. Currently the IRS Guaranty Fund is
calculated monthly and is proportionally allocated to each IRS Clearing
Member on the basis of its 90-day trailing average of its potential
residual loss and 90-day trailing average of its gross notional open
interest outstanding at the Clearing House. CME Clearing is proposing
to change the measurement period from 90 days to 30 days in order for
the IRS Guaranty Fund to more quickly react to an IRS Clearing Member's
current activity and to align the measurement period with the frequency
of Guaranty Fund calculations.
    Additionally, each IRS Clearing Member's contribution to the IRS
Guaranty Fund is currently the greater of its proportional share of the
IRS Guaranty Fund as described above or a $50 million minimum
contribution. The minimum was established to ensure that each IRS
Clearing Member has an appropriate stake in proper default management
regardless of the firm's position and incentivize a better default
auction process. The result of the minimum requirement is that the IRS
Guaranty fund is over-collateralized above the conservative estimates
of our IRS Guaranty Fund methodology. The proposed amendments would
size the IRS Guaranty Fund to the shortfall brought by the two largest
net debtors and adjust each firm's contribution on that basis.
3. Rule 8G802.B--Seniorization and Subordination of IRS Guaranty Fund
    In order to provide appropriate incentive for IRS Clearing Members
to submit aggressive bids during an auction for a defaulted IRS
Clearing Member's portfolio, CME is proposing to make amendments to
Rule 8G802.B to modify the application of the IRS Guaranty Fund on the
basis of each IRS Clearing Member's bidding during the auction process.
Where a defaulted IRS Clearing Member has a portfolio of IRS
denominated in multiple currencies, CME will split such portfolio by
currency and separately hedge and auction the resulting split
portfolios. IRS Clearing Members with open interest in a currency being
auctioned are required to provide a bid for the auctioned portfolio.
Each bid will be assessed for quality within the respective auction and
a portion (or all) of such IRS Clearing Member's deposit to the IRS
Guaranty Fund will be subject to seniorization (if such IRS Clearing
Member provides the winning bid) and subordination (if such IRS
Clearing Member provided an off market price). The amount subject to
such seniorization/subordination for an auction will be based on a
percentage determined for such IRS Clearing Member at the time of the
related auction in accordance with our IRS default management
procedures. Any IRS Guaranty Fund deposits that are subordinated will
be allocated pro rata to IRS Losses after the CME corporate
contribution and prior to any non-subordinated/seniorized deposits. Any
contributions that are not seniorized or subordinated in accordance
with above formula will be allocated pro rata to IRS losses after all
subordinated amounts and prior to any seniorized amounts.
4. New Rule 8G04.3--Outsourcing to Third Parties
    In connection with the CFTC's final rules for Derivatives Clearing
Organization General Provisions and Core Principles relating to Core
Principle G (Default Rules and Procedures) the CFTC implemented CFTC
Regulation 39.16 which includes a requirement that DCOs permit clearing
members to outsource certain obligations to qualified third parties. To
codify CME's practice of permitting eligible arrangements for IRS, CME
is adopting new CME Rule 8G04.3.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and particularly with Section 17A of the Act
because it involves clearing of swaps and futures contracts and thus
relate solely to CME's swaps and futures clearing activities pursuant
to its registration as a derivatives clearing organization under the
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') and does not significantly affect any
securities clearing operations of the clearing agency or any related
rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons using such
service. CME further notes that the policies of the CEA with respect to
clearing are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the
Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-
counter derivatives and futures markets, promoting the prompt and
accurate clearance of transactions, and protecting investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule changes accomplish those objectives
by facilitating portfolio margining of interest rate swaps and interest
rate futures at CME.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

III. 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 may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
), or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File No.
SR-CME-2012-05 on the subject line.
     Paper comments should be sent in triplicate to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-05. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and
on CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html. 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-CME-
2012-05 and should be submitted on or before April 17, 2012.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    Section 19(b) of the Act \3\ 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. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act,\4\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to CME. Specifically, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of derivative agreements, contracts,
and transactions because it should allow CME to enhance its services in
clearing IRS and Interest Rate Futures products, thereby promoting the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, CME requested that the Commission approve this
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. CME has articulated three
reasons for granting approval on an accelerated basis. One, the
products covered by this filing and CME's operations as a derivatives
clearing organization for such products, are regulated by the CFTC
under the CEA. Two, the proposed rule change relates solely to IRS and
Interest Rate Futures products and therefore relate solely to CME's
swaps clearing activities and do not significantly relate to CME's
functions as a clearing agency for security-based swaps. Three, not
approving this request on an accelerated basis will have a significant
impact on the swap clearing business of CME as a designated clearing
organization.
    The Commission finds good cause for granting approval of the
proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after publication of the
notice of its filing because: (i) The proposed rule change does not
significantly affect any securities clearing operations of the clearing
agency (whether in existence or contemplated by its rules) or any
related rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons using
such service; (ii) the clearing agency has indicated that not providing
accelerated approval would have a significant impact on its IRS
clearing business as a designated clearing organization; and (iii) the
activity relating to the non-security clearing operations of the
clearing agency for which the clearing agency is seeking approval is
subject to regulation by another federal regulator.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2012-05) is approved on an
accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7279 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 66164-66165]
[DOCID:fr27no07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1372-000, ER07-1372-001]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Staff Technical Conference

November 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 6, 2007, a staff technical conference
will be held

at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss the market power
analysis and mitigation measures set forth in the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.'s (Midwest ISO) ancillary services
market proposal. This technical conference was established in an Order
Establishing Technical Conference in the above-captioned dockets,
issued November 19, 2007. It will be held in the Commission Meeting
Room at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. (EST).
    The technical conference will be divided into two sessions. The
first session will address market power issues and the second session
will address mitigation issues. The format of the conference and
sessions will be as follows:
    Staff and Midwest ISO Introduction To Conference: 9-9:15.
    First Session: Market Power Issues:
    Independent Market Monitor (IMM) Presentation Addressing Appendix
Questions: 9:15-9:45.
    (See attached Appendix to this Notice)
    Questions and Issues From Parties: 9:45-11:30.
    Staff Follow-up Questions: 11:30-12.
    Lunch: 12-1.
    Second Session: Mitigation Issues:
    IMM Presentation Addressing Appendix Questions: 1-1:30.
    Questions and Issues From Parties: 1:30-3:15.
    Staff Follow-up Questions: 3:15-3:45.
    Next Steps; 3:45-4.
    The conference is open for the public to attend. The conference
will not be transcribed and telephone participation will not be
available.
    The Commission will accept written comments on the discussion at
this technical conference no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December
20, 2007, and reply comments no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on
January 7, 2008.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: John
Nail, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix

    The following questions pertain to aspects of the Midwest ISO
proposal that require further clarification. The Midwest ISO is
requested to provide materials at the conference addressing these
questions and to be prepared to discuss them. The Midwest ISO should
provide its full and complete answers to all questions for the
record of this proceeding in its filing of comments.

Questions To Be Discussed in the First Session

     Provide a market power analysis for the spring and fall
shoulder seasons. Present the results of the new analysis at the
technical conference.
     The definition of ancillary services sub-markets:
     Provide the basis for how the sub-markets and reserve
zones are defined and explain the differences between the two.
     Is the IMM market power analysis for only illustrative
purposes or is it intended to be relied on in this proceeding?
     How will the potential for market power be evaluated as
a result of any zonal reconfiguration?
     Either submit separate analyses for spinning and
supplemental reserves or provide an analysis demonstrating that the
two products are substitutes for each other. Present the results of
the analysis at the technical conference.
     Provide historical data, separately for each ancillary
services product (regulating reserves, spinning reserves and
supplemental reserves), since the start of the Midwest ISO energy
markets that indicates: (1) The capacity (in MWs) and number of
generator resources that could provide ancillary services; and (2)
the actual ancillary services provided, in MW and number of
generator resources. Present the results of the analysis at the
technical conference.

Questions To Be Discussed in the Second Session

     What is the basis for the IMM's conclusion that there
will be sufficient competition to ensure just and reasonable prices
in those hours and locations when mitigation thresholds are not
triggered?
     Explain how reference levels are determined for
suppliers in constrained areas, such as those identified in the IMM
analysis. In his testimony, the IMM indicates reference levels are
based on competitive offers. Please provide the basis for this
assertion and explain whether all offers by suppliers in constrained
areas are considered to be offers made under competitive conditions.
If not, how does the IMM determine which offers are made under
competitive conditions?
     Is a backstop reference price, such as is used in the
New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), appropriate for sub-
markets with only one or two suppliers? Explain the reasons
underlying your response.
     Considering the market power characteristics of the
Midwest ISO ancillary services market and its sub-markets, what are
the pros and cons of conduct/impact mitigation compared to
mitigating offers at a cost-based rate?
     What method and criteria will the IMM use to audit and
identify any supplier that withholds power in either the energy or
ancillary services markets, including during periods of scarcity
pricing?
     The Midwest ISO states that variations of how it
intends to mitigate its ancillary services market are being used by
existing RTOs/ISOs. Explain the similarities and differences between
the Midwest ISO mitigation proposal and the PJM Interconnection
(PJM) and California Independent System Operator (CAISO) ancillary
services markets mitigation programs.
     The Midwest ISO states that there are no unreasonable
barriers to entry that would compromise the competitiveness of the
Regulating Reserve market. Prospectively, what will the Midwest ISO
do to ensure a lack of barriers to entry and encourage suppliers to
bid into the congested submarket areas?

[FR Doc. E7-23038 Filed 11-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33017-33019]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53922; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change Extending the Exchange's Preferred Market-
Maker Pilot Program

June 1, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 22, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis, for a pilot period through June 2,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to extend the Preferred
Market-Maker Pilot Program for one year, until June 2, 2007. The text
of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Brackets indicate
deletions; italics indicates new text.
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 8.13 Preferred Market-Maker Program

    (a) Generally. The Exchange may allow, on a class-by-class basis,
for the receipt of marketable orders, through the Exchange's Order
Routing System when the Exchange's disseminated quote is the NBBO, that
carry a designation from the member transmitting the order that
specifies a Market-Maker in that class as the ``Preferred Market-
Maker'' for that order. A qualifying recipient of a Preferred Market-
Maker order shall be afforded a participation entitlement as set forth
in subparagraph (c) below. The Preferred Market-Maker Program shall be
in effect until June 2, 2007[6] on a pilot basis.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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 III 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
    In June 2005, CBOE obtained approval of a filing adopting a
Preferred DPM Program.\3\ This allowed order providers to send orders
to the Exchange designating a Preferred DPM from among the DPM complex.
If the Preferred DPM was quoting at the NBBO at the time the order was
received by CBOE, the Preferred DPM was entitled to the entire DPM
participation entitlement. The Exchange subsequently modified the
applicable participation entitlement percentages under the program \4\
and, then expanded the scope of the program to apply to qualifying
Market-Makers (as opposed to just DPMs).\5\ At that time, the program
was renamed the Preferred Market-Maker Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51779 (June 2,
2005), 70 FR 33564 (June 8, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-71).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51824 (June 10,
2005), 70 FR 35476 (June 20, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2005-45); and
52021 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41462 (July 19, 2005) (approving SR-
CBOE-2005-50).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52506 (September 23,
2005), 70 FR 57340 (September 30, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2005-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE Rule 8.13 establishes a Preferred Market-Maker Program on a
pilot basis. The pilot is due to expire on June 2, 2006. CBOE proposes
extending the pilot program an additional year, until June 2, 2007.
According to CBOE, since the pilot program was put into operation it
has been positively received by the options trading community. CBOE
believes that there has not been any adverse or unanticipated negative
impact on the market by the presence of the Preferred Market-Maker
Program. Further, CBOE believes that the pilot program helps generate
greater order flow for the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
should promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change.

III. 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 and whether the pilot time frame is
appropriate. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in

the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2006-52 and should be submitted on or before June 28, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis for an additional year so that the pilot
program may continue uninterrupted. After careful consideration, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of section 6 of the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,\9\ and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\10\ Section
6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the
current pilot was approved on a one-year basis to give the Commission
an opportunity to evaluate the impact of the pilot program on the
options markets to determine whether it would be beneficial to
customers and to the options markets as a whole before approving any
request for permanent approval of the pilot program. The Commission
believes that a one-year extension of the pilot period would provide
the Commission with additional time to continue evaluate the Exchange's
Preferred Market-Maker Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after
publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission
believes that granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change
would allow the pilot program to continue without disruption while the
Commission and the Exchange continue to review the pilot program's
impact on the options market. Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ for approving
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication
of notice thereof in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-52), which
institutes the pilot program through June 2, 2007, is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8805 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 69271]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
Aviation Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice (See 80 FR 58808-58809, September
30, 2015) the National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) invited interested persons to apply to fill one
upcoming opening to represent Native American interests on the National
Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC). This notice informs the public of the persons selected to fill
this current vacancy as the membership term expired on October 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, and subsequently
amended in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Act
required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after
its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory
group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general
aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and
Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director
of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group.
Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-
year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations'' to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

 Membership

    The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
ARC are as follows:
    Melissa Rudinger representing general aviation; Alan Stephen, Matt
Zuccaro, and Mark Francis representing commercial air tour operators;
Michael Sutton, Nicholas Miller, Mark Belles, and Dick Hingson
representing environmental interests; and Leigh Kuwanwisiwma
representing Native American tribes with one seat open.

Selection

    The person selected to fill the open seat representing Native
American interests is Martin Begaye. Mr. Begaye's 3-year term will
begin on the day of the Federal Register notice publication.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on November 4, 2015.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-28489 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Appendix A to Subpart DDDDD   Methodology and Criteria for Demonstrating Eligibility for the Health Based Compliance Alternatives Specified for the Large Solid Fuel Subcategory 1. Purpose/ Introduction This appendix provides the methodology and criteria for demonstrating that your affected source is eligible for the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit and/ or the total selected metals ( TSM) emission limit. This appendix specifies emissions testing methods that you must use to determine HCl, chlorine, and manganese emissions from the affected units and what parts of the affected source facility must be included in the eligibility demonstration. You must demonstrate that your affected source is eligible for the healthbased compliance alternatives using either a look up table analysis ( based on the look up tables included in this appendix)

or site specific compliance demonstration performed according to the criteria specified in this appendix. This appendix also specifies how and when you file any eligibility demonstrations for your affected source and how to show that your affected source remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives in the future.

2. Who is eligible to demonstrate that they qualify for the health based compliance alternatives?

Each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source may demonstrate that they are eligible for the health based compliance alternatives. Section 63.7490 of subpart DDDDD defines the affected source and explains which affected sources are new, existing, or reconstructed.

3. What parts of my facility have to be included in the healthbased eligibility demonstration?

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as respiratory toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration:

Respiratory Toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Chlorine 7782 50 5 Propylene oxide 75 56 9 Styrene oxide 96 09 3 Acrolein 107 02 8 Titanium tetrachloride 7550 45 0 Triethylamine 121 44 8 2,4 Toluene diisocyanate 26471 62 5 Acrylic acid 79 10 7 Acrylonitrile 107 13 1 Vinyl acetate 108 05 4 Toluene 108 88 3 Methyl isocyanate 624 83 9 n Hexane 110 54 3 Hydrochloric acid 7647 01 0 Maleic anhydride 108 31 6 Methyl bromide 74 83 9 Phthalic anhydride 85 44 9 2 Chloroacetophenone 532 27 4 Cobalt 7440 48 4 Methyl methacrylate 80 62 6 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 101 68 8 Naphthalene 91 20 3 Phosgene 75 44 5 1,3 dichloropropene 542 75 6 Propylene dichloride 78 87 5 Ethylene glycol 107 21 1 Chloroprene 126 99 8 Hexamethylene 1,6 diisocyanate 822 06 0 Nickel compounds Antimony compounds Beryllium compounds Hexavalent Chromium compounds If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as central nervous system ( CNS) toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration.

Central nervous system ( CNS) toxicants Pollutant CAS Number 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 71 55 6 Ethylene oxide 75 21 8 Styrene 100 42 5 Methyl chloride 74 87 3 Cyanide compounds Selenium compounds Lead compounds Mercury compounds Manganese compounds 4. How do I determine HAP emissions from my affected source?

( a) You must conduct HAP emissions tests for every emission point covered under subpart DDDDD within the affected source facility according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b) through ( f) of this section and the methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for both HCl and Cl2. In addition to the emissions of HCl and Cl2 from your subpart DDDDD units, the eligibility demonstration must address any significant emissions of respiratory toxicants from all other emission points at your facility. These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for manganese. In addition to the emissions of manganese from your subpart DDDDD units, the eligibility demonstration must address any significant emissions of CNS toxicants from all other emission points at your facility.

These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

( b) Periods when emissions tests must be conducted.

( 1) You must not conduct emissions tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1).

( 2) You must test under worst case operating conditions as defined in this appendix. You must describe your worst case operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems ( if applicable) and explain why the conditions are worst case.

( c) Number of test runs. You must conduct three separate test runs for each test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

( d) Sampling locations. Sampling sites must be located at MaxHourlyEmissions ER Hm = × the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

( e) Collection of monitoring data for HAP control devices.

During the emissions test, you must collect operating parameter monitoring system data at least every 15 minutes during the entire emissions test and establish the site specific operating requirements in Tables 3 or 4, as appropriate, of subpart DDDDD using data from the monitoring system and the procedures specified in § 63.7530 of subpart DDDDD.

( f) Nondetect data. You may treat emissions of an individual HAP as zero if all of the test runs result in a nondetect measurement and the condition in paragraph ( 1) is met for the manganese test method. Otherwise nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one half of the method detection limit.

( 1) For manganese measured using Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, you analyze samples using atomic absorption spectroscopy ( AAS).

( g) You must determine the maximum hourly emission rate for each appropriate emission point according to equation 1.

( Eq. 1 )

Where: MaxHourly = Maximum hourly emissions for Emissions hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per hour.

Er = Emission rate ( as calculated according to Table 1 of this appendix) for hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input.

Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of appropriate emission point, in units of million Btu per hour.

5. What are the criteria for determining if my facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

( a) Determine the HAP emissions from each appropriate emission point within the affected source facility using the procedures specified in section 4 of this appendix.

( b) Demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either of the health based compliance alternatives using one of the methods described in section 6 of this appendix ( look up table analysis)

and section 7 of this appendix ( site specific compliance demonstration).

( c) Your facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternative for HCl if 1 of the following 2 statements is true: ( 1) The calculated HCl equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the look up table;

( 2) Your site specific compliance demonstration indicates that your total facility maximum respiratory HI is less than 1.0;

( d) Your facility is eligible for the health based compliance alternative for TSM if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated manganese equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the lookup table;

( 2) Your site specific compliance demonstration indicates that your total facility maximum central nervous system HI is less than 1.0;

6. How do I conduct a look up table analysis?

You may use look up tables to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit or the compliance alternative for TSM emission limit.

( a) HCl health based compliance alternative. To calculate the total toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate for your facility, first calculate the total facility emission rate of HCl by summing the maximum hourly HCl emission rates from all sources within the facility boundary line. Then, similarly, calculate the total facility emission rate for Cl2. Next, calculate the total facility emission rate for each of the respiratory toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the emissions for each respiratory toxicant across all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD.

Finally, calculate the toxicity weighted emission rate ( expressed in HCl equivalents) according to equation 2 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCHCl/ RfCi)) Eq. 2 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate, lb/ hr ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCHCl is the reference concentration of HCl ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

The calculated toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicityweighted emission rate in Table 2 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a subpart DDDDD average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any subpart DDDDD stack at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area should be used for fenceline distance. If one or both of these values do not match the exact values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility is eligible to comply with the health based alternative HCl emission limit if your toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate,

determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value in Table 2 of this appendix.

( b) TSM Compliance Alernative. To calculate the total toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate for your facility, first sum the maximum hourly manganese emission rates for all sources within the facility boundary line. Next,

calculate the total facility emission rates for each additional central nervous system toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the maximum hourly emission rates for all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. Finally, calculate the toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in manganese equivalents according to equation 3 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCMn/ RfCi)) Eq. 3 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate, lb/ hr ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCMn is the reference concentration of manganese ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

The calculated toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicityweighted emission rate in the Table 3 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a subpart DDDDD average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any subpart DDDDD at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentiallyzoned area should be used for fenceline distance. If one or both of these values do not match the exact values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility may exclude manganese when demonstrating compliance with the TSM emission limit if your toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate, determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value specified in Table 3 of this appendix.

7. How do I conduct a site specific compliance demonstration?

If you fail to demonstrate that your facility is able to comply with one or both of the alternative health based emission standards using the lookup table approach, you may choose to perform a site specific compliance demonstration for your entire facility. You may use any scientifically accepted peer reviewed risk assessment methodology for your site specific compliance demonstration. An example of one approach for performing a site specific compliance demonstration for air toxics can be found in the EPA's " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume 2, Site Specific Risk Assessment Technical Resource Document",

which may be obtained through the EPA's Air Toxics Website at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw.

( a) Your facility is eligible for the HCl alternative compliance option if your site specific compliance demonstration shows that the maximum HI from respiratory HAP, listed in section 3, is less than 1.0.

( b) Your facility is eligible for the TSM alternative compliance option if your site specific compliance demonstration shows that the maximum HI from CNS HAP, listed in section 3, is less than 1.0.

( c) Your site specific compliance demonstration must:

( 1) estimate long term inhalation exposures through the estimation of annual or multi year average ambient concentrations;

( 2) estimate the inhalation exposure and lifetime cancer risk for the individual most exposed to the facility's emissions;

( 3) use site specific, quality assured data wherever possible;

( 4) use health protective default assumptions wherever sitespecific data are not available, and;

( 5) contain adequate documentation of the data and methods used for the assessment so that it is transparent and can be reproduced by an experienced risk assessor.

( d) Your site specific compliance demonstration need not:

( 1) assume any attenuation of exposure concentrations due to the penetration of outdoor pollutants into indoor exposure areas;

( 2) assume any reaction or deposition of the emitted pollutants during transport from the emission point to the point of exposure;

8. What must my health based eligibility demonstration contain?

( a) Your health based eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section.

( 1) Identification of each appropriate emission point at the affected source facility, including the maximum rated capacity of each appropriate emission point.

( 2) Stack parameters for each appropriate emission point including, but not limited to, the parameters listed in ( a)( 2)( i)

through ( iv) below:

( i) Emission release type ( ii) Stack height, stack area, stack gas temperature, and stack gas exit velocity ( iii) Plot plan showing all emission points, nearby residences, and fenceline.

( iv) Identification of any control devices used to reduce emissions from each appropriate emission point.

( 3) Emission test reports for each pollutant and appropriate emission point which has been tested using the test methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix, including a description of the process parameters identified as being worst case. For those emissions which are not measured but are included in the assessment, the calculation method used, the inputs and outputs of any estimation developed, and any supporting references should be included in the documentation.

( 4) Identification of the RfC values used in your look up table analysis or site specific compliance demonstration.

( 5) Calculations used to determine the toxicity weighted emission rates expressed in HCl equivalents or manganese equivalent according to sections 6( a) or ( b) of this appendix,

including emission rates of each respiratory or CNS toxicants.

( Note: this information need only be included if a look up table analysis is performed.)

( 6) Identification of the controlling process factors ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, heat input rate, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) that will become Federally enforceable permit conditions used to show that your facility remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives.

( b) If you use the look up table analysis in section 6 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either health based compliance alternative, your eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum, the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section.

( 1) Calculations used to determine the average stack height of the subpart DDDDD emission points.

( 2) Identification of the subpart DDDDD emission point with the nearest distance to the closest boundary of the facility used for fenceline distance.

( 3) Comparison of the values in the look up tables ( Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix) to your maximum toxicity weighted HCl equivalent or manganese equivalent hourly emission rates.

( c) If you use a site specific compliance demonstration as described in section 7 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible, your eligibility demonstration must contain, at a minimum, the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section:

( 1) Identification of the risk assessment methodology used.

( 2) Documentation of the fate and transport model used.

( 3) Documentation of the fate and transport model inputs,

including the information described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section converted to the dimensions required for the model and all of the following that apply: meteorological data;

building, land use, and terrain data; receptor locations and population data; and other facility specific parameters input into the model.

( 4) Documentation of the fate and transport model outputs. ( 5) Documentation of any exposure assessment and risk characterization calculations.

( 6) Comparison of the maximum chronic respiratory and/ or CNS HI to the HI limit of 1.0.

9. When do I have to complete and submit my health based eligibility demonstration?

( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete and submit your eligibility demonstration to your permitting authority, along with a signed certification that the demonstration is an accurate depiction of your facility, no later than the date one year prior to the compliance date of subpart DDDDD.

( b) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, then you must comply with the requirements of subpart DDDDD until your eligibility demonstration is completed and submitted to your permitting authority.

( c) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, then you must follow the schedule in paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2) of this section.

( 1) You must complete and submit a preliminary eligibility demonstration based on the information ( e. g., equipment types,

estimated emission rates, etc.) used to obtain your title V permit. You must base your preliminary eligibility demonstration on the maximum emissions allowed under your title V permit. If the preliminary eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source facility is eligible for either compliance alternative, then you may start up your new affected source and your new affected source will be considered in compliance with the alternative HCl standard and subject to the compliance requirements in this appendix or, in the case of manganese, your compliance demonstration with the TSM emission limit is based on 7 metals ( excluding manganese).

( 2) You must conduct the emission tests specified in section 4 of this appendix upon initial startup and use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit your eligibility demonstration within 180 days following your initial startup date. To be eligible, you must meet the criteria in section 11 of this appendix within 18 months following initial startup of your affected source.

10. When do I become eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

To be eligible for either health based compliance alternative, the parameters that defined your affected source as eligible for the health based compliance alternatives ( including,

but not limited to, fuel type, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) must be incorporated as Federally enforceable limits into your title V permit. If you do not meet these criteria, then your affected source is subject to the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in Subpart DDDDD.

11. How do I ensure that my facility remains eligible for the health based compliance alternatives?

( a) You must update your eligibility demonstration and resubmit it each time you have a process change, such that any of the parameters that defined your affected source changes in a way that could result in increased HAP emissions ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, change in type of control device, changes in process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your approved eligibility demonstration).

( b) If you are updating your eligibility demonstration to account for an action in paragraph ( a) of this section, then you must perform emission testing according to section 4 of this appendix for the subpart DDDDD emission points that may have increased HAP emissions beyond the levels reflected in your previously approved eligibility demonstration due to the process change. You must submit your revised eligibility demonstration to EPA prior to revising your permit to incorporate the process change. If your updated eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source is no longer eligible for the health based compliance alternatives, then you must comply with the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and compliance requirements in Subpart DDDDD prior to making the process change and revising your permit.

13. What records must I keep?

You must keep records of the information used in developing the eligibility demonstration for your affected source, including all of the information specified in section 8 of this appendix.

14. Definitions.

The definitions in § 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD apply to this appendix. Additional definitions applicable for this appendix are as follows:

Appropriate emission point means a process unit that is reasonably expected to emit the HAP of concern ( HCl, chlorine,

manganese, respiratory toxicants, or central nervous system toxicants).

Hazard Index ( HI) means the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple substances and/ or multiple exposure pathways.

Hazard Quotient ( HQ) means the ratio of the predicted media concentration of a pollutant to the media concentratation at which no adverse effects are expected. For inhalation exposures,

the HQ is calculated as the air concentration divided by the RfC.

Look up table analysis means a risk screening analysis based on comparing the HAP emission rate ( or toxicity weighted HAP emission rate) from the affected source to the maximum allowable HAP emission rates specified in Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix.

Reference Concentration ( RfC) means an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used.

Worst case operating conditions means operation of an affected unit during emissions testing under the conditions that result in the highest HAP emissions or that result in the emissions stream composition ( including HAP and non HAP) that is most challenging for the control device if a control device is used. For example, worst case conditions could include operation of an affected unit firing solid fuel likely to produce the most HAP. Table 1 to Appendix B of Subpart DDDDD. Emission Test Methods.

For... You must... Using...

( 1) each subpart DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative select sampling ports' location and the number of traverse points Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

( 2) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative determine velocity and volumetric flow rate; Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 3) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative conduct gas molecular weight analysis Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 4) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative measure moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 5) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use the HCl compliance alternative measure the hydrogen chloride and chlorine emission concentrations Method 26 or 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 6) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use the TSM compliance alternative measure the manganese emission concentration Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 7) each emission DDDDD emission point for which you choose to use a compliance alternative convert emissions concentration to lb per MMBtu emission rates. Method 19 F factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Table 2 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 144.3 287.3 373.0 373.0 373.0 373.0 10 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 195.3 328.0 453.5 434.4 434.4 434.4 20 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 425.4 580.0 602.7 602.7 602.7 30 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 436.3 596.2 690.6 807.8 816.5 40 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 448.2 613.3 715.5 832.2 966.0 50 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 460.6 631.0 746.3 858.2 1002.8 60 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 473.4 649.0 778.6 885.0 1043.4 70 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 486.6 667.4 813.8 912.4 1087.4 80 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 500.0 685.9 849.8 940.9 1134.8 100 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 527.4 723.6 917.1 1001.2 1241.3 200 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 682.3 919.8 1167.1 1390.4 1924.6 Table 3 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable Toxicity Weighted Emission Rate Expressed in Manganese Equivalents ( lbs/ hr) fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.82 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.09 20 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.06 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.51 30 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.09 1.49 1.73 2.02 2.04 40 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.53 1.79 2.08 2.42 50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.58 1.87 2.15 2.51 60 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.62 1.95 2.21 2.61 70 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.67 2.03 2.28 2.72 80 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.71 2.12 2.35 2.84 100 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.81 2.29 2.50 3.10 200 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.71 2.30 2.92 3.48 4.81