[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43085-43087]
[DOCID:fr26au09-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0558; FRL-8949-4]

Revisions to the Arizona State PM-10 Implementation Plan;
Maricopa County Air Quality Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM) emissions from non-metallic mineral mining and processing in the
Maricopa County (Phoenix) serious PM-10 nonattainment area. We are
proposing to approve a local rule that regulates these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0558], 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: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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: Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
    D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates on
which it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD...............................             316   Nonmetallic Mineral             3/10/08          7/10/08
                                                        Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submittal became complete by operation of law on January 10,
2009 pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved a version of Rule 316 into the SIP on January 4, 2001.
MCAQD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on June 8, 2005 and
ADEQ submitted them to us on October 7, 2005. We proposed approval of
the June 8, 2005 version of Rule 316 on July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39251).
The June 8, 2005 version of the rule was superseded by the March 10,
2008 version of the rule. Therefore we will not be taking final action
on our July 12, 2006 proposed approval.\1\ We can act on only the most
recently submitted version. We have, however, reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals in evaluating the rule that is the
subject of this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As a result, we are not responding to the comments we
received on that proposed approval at this time. Commenters wishing
to again raise issues raised in comments on that proposal should
resubmit applicable comments to the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. In addition, SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas
such as the Maricopa County area must implement at least Best Available
Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 81.303). Rule 316
limits the emissions of particulate matter from stack, fugitive and
process sources at nonmetallic mineral processing plants. Among other
things, Rule 316 has opacity requirements for stack emissions, requires
that a minimum moisture content be maintained at crushers, shaker
screens, and material transfer points, has silt loading and
stabilization standards for unpaved roads and disturbed areas, as well
as track out control provisions which require the use of rumble grates
and wheel washers. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a))
and must not relax existing requirements (see section 110(l)). As
stated above, SIP rules must also implement at least Best Available
Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas such as the Maricopa
County area. The CAA does not clearly define what level of control
constitutes BACM for specific activities. In guidance, we have defined
it to be, among other things, the maximum degree of emission reduction
achievable from a source or source category which is determined on a
case-by-case basis, considering energy, economic, environmental impacts
and other costs.\2\ We have outlined in our guidance a four-step
process for identifying BACM. Addendum at 42010-42014. These steps
include developing a detailed emissions inventory of PM-10 sources and
source categories, evaluating the impact on PM-10 concentrations of the
various sources and source categories to determine which are
significant,\3\ identifying potential BACM for significant source
categories and evaluating their reasonableness, considering
technological feasibility, costs, and energy and environmental impacts,
and providing for the implementation of the BACM or providing a
reasoned justification for rejecting any potential BACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (Addendum), 59
FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994).
    \3\ We have established a presumption that a ``significant''
source category is one that contributes 5 [mu]g/m\3\ or more of PM-
10 to a location of 24-hour violation. Addendum at 42011. ADEQ
identified industrial sources as significant contributors to PM-10
24-hour exceedances at the Salt River monitors (see the Revised PM-
10 State Implementation Plan for the Salt River Area, September
2005, Table 4.2.1, pgs. 26 and 27). ADEQ found that the vast
majority of industrial source PM-10 emissions are generated by
nonmetallic mineral processing sources. Additional information about
the Salt River Plan can be found at 71 FR 39251 (July 12, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIP rules in serious PM-10 non-attainment areas, such as the
Maricopa area, for which the State has requested an attainment date
extension beyond 2001, must also meet the Most Stringent Measures (MSM)
requirement in section 188(e).\4\ The CAA section 188(e) requirement
for MSM is similar to the requirement for BACM. Under section 188(e),
serious PM-10 areas applying for an attainment date extension are
required to include in their attainment plans the most stringent
measures included in other SIPs or in practice in other states and
which can be feasibly implemented in the area. Given the similarity
between the BACM requirement and the MSM requirement, we believe that
determining MSM should follow a process similar to determining BACM,
but with one additional step, to compare the potentially most stringent
measure against the measures already adopted in the area to determine
if the existing measures are most stringent. See 66 FR 50252, 50281,
50284 (October 2, 2001) for a discussion of our interpretation of the
BACM and MSM requirements as applied to the Maricopa area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA granted the attainment date extension requested by the
State on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48718).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate
specific enforceability and BACM requirements include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
    4. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    5. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.
    We also compared Rule 316 to several regulations in other PM-10
nonattainment areas, which are further described in the TSD.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant guidance and
meets the requirements in CAA section 110(a) regarding enforceability,
the

requirements in CAA section 110(l) regarding SIP relaxation, and the
requirements in CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e) regarding BACM and
MSM. Monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and associated requirements
generally ensure that the submitted rule can be enforced. The March 10,
2008 version of Rule 316 is more stringent than the SIP-approved rule.
Moreover, in addition to reviewing the analysis submitted by ADEQ, we
have compared the requirements in Rule 316 to requirements in
comparable rules in other PM-10 nonattainment areas and believe that
Rule 316 is generally as stringent as the requirements in those other
areas. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current proposed action but are recommended for the next time
MCAQD modifies the rule.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B)
and 188(e). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information
during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action
that will incorporate this rule into the Federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this 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 Clean Air Act; 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 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 31, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-20597 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76702-76704]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0386]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Volvo/Prevost LLC

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an application for exemption from Volvo/
Prevost LLC (Volvo/Prevost) to allow the placement of a lane departure
warning (LDW) system at the bottom of the windshield on its
motorcoaches within the swept area of the windshield wipers. The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) currently require
antennas, transponders, and similar devices to be located not more than
6 inches below the upper edge of the windshield, outside the area swept
by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals. Volvo/Prevost intends to install
these devices as original equipment on its motorcoaches. Volvo/Prevost
believes this mounting position will maintain a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2013-XXX by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site. Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and also at
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you want to be
notified you that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian J. Routhier, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from
the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule
implementing section 4007 (69 FR 51589). Under this rule, FMCSA must
publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49
CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public with an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason
for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice
must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the
exemption (up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the
exemption. The exemption may be renewed [49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR
381.300(b)].

Volvo/Prevost's Application for Exemption

    Volvo/Prevost applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to
allow the installation of a LDW system on motorcoaches purchased by its
customers. A copy of the application is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.60(e)(1) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the
driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield.
Antennas, transponders and similar devices must not be mounted more
than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield. These
devices must be located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers
and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and
signals.
    In its application, Volvo/Prevost stated:

    Volvo/Prevost is making this request so it is possible to
introduce a Lane Departure Warning system in line with [the] NHTSA
Bus Safety plan as it already did for several other safety features.
The camera must be installed in the wiper swept area of [the]
windshield for the system to perform correctly because it must have
a clear forward facing view of the road. On a today's typical coach
the lower part of the windshield is outside the driver's sight lines
to the road and highway signs and signals which is different from a
truck. Therefore, we request the installation of the camera on the
lower part of the windshield within the bottom 7 inches of the wiper
swept area.

In addition, Volvo/Prevost noted that without the proposed temporary
exemption, it will not be able to deploy the lane departure warning
system in motorcoaches because (1) its customers will be fined for
violating the current regulation, (2) the lane departure warning system
will not perform adequately and will not bring the safety benefits
expected, and (3) the camera would be more in the field of view of the
driver. Volvo/Prevost states that if the exemption is granted, it
``will be able to install the LDW camera system in a location which
will offer the best opportunity to optimize the data and evaluate the
benefits of such a system.''

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on Volvo/Prevost's
application for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1). All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date
indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant
information that becomes available after the comment closing date.
Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new
material.

    Issued on: December 11, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30078 Filed 12-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency / Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance / Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2020  0020 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Annual Public Water Systems Compliance Report ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1812.03 9. Keywords Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Water Systems, PWS, Annual Compliance Report, violations 10. Abstract Section 1414 ( c)( 3)( A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each state that has primary enforcement authority under the Act shall prepare, make readily available to the public, and submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report of violations of national primary drinking water regulations in the state. The states' reports are to include violations of maximum contaminant levels, treatment requirements, variances and exemptions, and monitoring requirements determined to be significant by the Administrator after consultation with the states.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 56 b. Total annual responses 56 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 24 % c. Total annual hours requested 4,480 d. Current OMB inventory 4,300 e. Difference 180 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 180 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. P_ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ X_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Acquanetta Delaney Phone: ( 202) 564 7061 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

© It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Office Official James Edward, Director Compliance Assistance and Sector Programs Division Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collections Strategies Division Office of Information Collection Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29953-29956]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13707]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81022; File No. SR-OC-2017-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Implement Four Decimal Pricing for Outright
Transactions in Single Stock Futures

June 26, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'')\1\, notice is hereby given that on June 16, 2017,
OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons. OneChicago has also filed this rule
change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
OneChicago filed a written certification with the CFTC under Section
5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') on June 16, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OneChicago is proposing to amend OneChicago Rule 902 (Contract
Specifications) to decrease the minimum price increment for outright
Single Stock Futures (``SSFs'')\2\ quotes and trades from $0.01 to
$0.0001 per share, which results in a minimum price fluctuation of
$0.01 per contract. OneChicago is proposing this change to permit
market participants to more precisely price the interest rate component
of SSFs. Unlike their underlying securities, which are typically priced
directly by the value of the security itself, SSF prices are derived by
adding an interest rate component to the price of the underlying
security. As described in more detail below, interest rates are
commonly quoted in basis points (``bps''), and the forward value of
SSFs must accurately reflect these interest rates. As such, OneChicago
believes that four decimal quoting and trading may assist market
participants in pricing SSFs with the precision necessary to reflect
the actual value of the interest rate component of the contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An ``outright'' SSF trade is a non-block, non-EFP, non-
spread trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minimum price fluctuation is set forth in OneChicago Rule 902,
which provides general contract specifications for all OneChicago SSFs.
Because the minimum price increment for blocks, EFPs, and spread
transactions was already set at $0.0001, upon amending OneChicago Rule
902(e), all SSF trade types, including outright trades, will quote and
trade with minimum fluctuations of $0.0001 (i.e., one basis point per
dollar).
    Further, as currently drafted, OneChicago Rule 902(e) provides that
the Exchange may amend the minimum price fluctuation for SSFs without
amending the text of the rule itself. Specifically, the clause ``or as
otherwise stated by the Exchange'' effectively permits the Exchange to
set a minimum price fluctuation by notice or other means. OneChicago is
now proposing to amend OneChicago Rule 902(e) to delete this clause,
thereby providing certainty to market participants that the minimum
price fluctuation is stated solely in OneChicago Rule 902, and will not
be amended other than through the rule change process.
    The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to
the filing submitted by the Exchange but is not attached to the
published notice of the filing.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OneChicago 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared a summary
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
    OneChicago is proposing to amend OneChicago Rule 902 (Contract
Specifications) to decrease the minimum fluctuation for outright SSF
quotes and trades from $0.01 to $0.0001 per share effective July 10,
2017.\3\ Previously, the minimum price fluctuation for each contract
was located in the OneChicago Rule 905 supplement. In 2011, OneChicago
amended the pricing of block and EFP transactions in OneChicago Rule
905 to permit four decimal point trade prices.\4\ In 2015, OneChicago
similarly amended OneChicago Rule 905 to permit quoting and trading of
spread transactions in four decimal places as well.\5\ This expansion
allowed these trades to be more precisely priced because, as described
in detail below, the interest rate component of SSFs is expressed in
basis points, and four decimal pricing would permit market participants
to quote or trade at prices that translate to their desired basis point
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OneChicago's outright SSFs are currently quoted and traded
in two decimal places, and are therefore settled on a per-contract
basis with a minimum price fluctuation of $1.00 due to the 100 share
per-contract multiplier. The Commission notes that the proposed rule
change has become effective on June 16, 2017 and will be implemented
on July 10, 2017.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65053 (August 8,
2011) (SR-OC-2011-01).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75464 (July 16,
2015) (SR-OC-2015-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This change will harmonize the pricing of all OneChicago trade
types to four decimal places, and permit the same level of precision in
central limit order book (``CLOB'') outright trades as is currently
available for block trades. This change may also remove a potential
barrier to entry to OneChicago's competitive marketplace, and could
encourage market participants to transition away from the block
marketplace and to the CLOB.
    OneChicago acknowledges that sub-penny pricing is currently
prohibited in NMS securities.\6\ Although SSFs are not NMS securities,
OneChicago believes it is warranted to discuss why four decimal pricing
is appropriate in the SSF market, as well as why certain concerns
highlighted by the rule's sub-penny prohibition would not apply to the
SSFs listed by OneChicago.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.612.
    \7\ OneChicago notes that equity options, like SSFs, also have a
multiplier of 100 underlying shares, but are currently only quoted
and traded in two decimal places. OneChicago believes it is
appropriate to distinguish SSFs from equity options with regard to
decimal quoting and trading. In OneChicago's view, unlike equity
options, which are primarily used for hedging or speculating, the
primary uses of SSFs are to (1) refinance equity positions by
replacing them with positions in SSFs at more favorable interest
rates, (2) loan or borrow securities, or (3) loan or borrow cash
with securities as collateral. In each case, the ability for the SSF
trade price to precisely target the desired interest rate of the
transaction is a necessary component. Accordingly, providing for
four decimal quoting and trading supports the key uses of SSFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interest Rate Component of SSFs
    Unlike securities--which are assets--SSFs are contingent
liabilities that represent the forward value of the underlying
security. The primary

difference in pricing between securities and the SSFs that overlay them
is the interest rate component of the forward contract. The interest
rate of an SSF represents the cost for an individual to hold the
underlying equity--or in other words, the cost of carry. Interest rates
are described in basis points, which are hundredths of one percentage
point. For example, an interest rate of 1.25% can also be expressed as
125 basis points. Interest rates are relative, not static, values.
Consequently, 125 basis points can represent a different dollar value
depending on the notional amount the interest rate is applied to. Four
decimal pricing is a necessary step towards allowing SSFs to be priced
in the dollar value that translates to the desired basis point
equivalent.
    Since a trade in an SSF is not the purchase of an asset, but
instead allows the individual to carry a position to a future time, the
most accurate way to price the interest rate of the trade is in basis
points. In order to trade in basis points, market participants need the
ability to price trades to the fourth numerical decimal point.\8\ The
decimal pricing expressed in dollars and cents can simply be viewed as
a translation tool to permit market participants to trade at their
desired level of basis points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OneChicago notes that the greater number of numerical
decimal places available in a trade price, the more precisely the
basis point rate of a trade may be targeted. OneChicago believes
that four decimal point pricing is currently sufficient to provide
interest rate precision, while also avoiding increased complexity
that may be associated with five or six (or greater) decimal point
pricing. Due to the 100 share multiplier, per-share trade prices in
four decimals would permit contract settlement in two decimal
places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OneChicago believes that two decimal pricing is not sufficient to
translate a dollar value to an interest rate with precision. For
example, an SSF bid-ask spread of $4.01 by $4.02 on a $4.00 underlying
stock with sixty-four days left until expiration would represent a
1.40% (140 bps) difference between the best bid and best ask.
Specifically, the bid at $4.01 translates to a 1.41% (141 bps) interest
rate, whereas the offer at $4.02 translates to a 2.81% (281 bps)
interest rate.\9\ A market participant desiring to enter into a long
position in the SSF at any interest rate between 140 bps and 281 bps
would be prohibited from doing so by two decimal pricing, even if the
seller was also willing to enter into a short position at that level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As an ancillary matter, OneChicago notes that the Exchange
trading platform does not support market orders partly to protect
market participants from inadvertently crossing these large interest
rate spreads and executing at an unexpected or undesired interest
rate. Limit orders are the only order type that allow participants
to precisely target an interest rate with their order price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although SSF trade prices are represented in dollar values, they
also encompass interest rate and time until expiration. By using the
trade price and time until expiration, market participants can
determine the corresponding interest rate of the trade. Likewise, if a
market participant is seeking a particular interest rate, that market
participant can calculate the trade price by taking into account the
desired interest rate and days until expiry. This is distinguished from
trading in the underlying securities where the trade price directly
represents the value of the asset itself. Accordingly, when market
participants trade an SSF, they are calculating the futures trade price
by considering not only the stock price, but also the days left to
expiry and the prevailing interest rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Interest rates are typically expressed in five decimal
places (or alternatively, in basis points out to three decimal
places). See e.g., ICE Libor Historical Rates, available at https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerns Raised by Reg NMS
    OneChicago has considered whether permitting market participants to
quote and trade SSFs in up to four decimals will impose any burdens on
or otherwise negatively impact the SSF marketplace.\11\ OneChicago does
not believe that permitting quoting and trading SSFs in up to four
decimals will cause market participants to step ahead of each other's
limit orders for nominal amounts, and thereby cause resting limit
orders to lose their execution priority in the CLOB. Since $0.0001 in
an SSF trade price may represent varying notional amounts depending on
the trade price, quantity, and days left until expiry, OneChicago does
not believe it is appropriate to prohibit four decimal pricing based on
such a concern.\12\ This is especially true in a low interest rate
environment where market participants need to tailor their SSF trade
prices with accuracy such that the resulting interest rate is in line
with their expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612, prohibits
national securities exchanges from accepting or ranking orders in
any NMS security priced greater than $1.00 per share in an increment
smaller than $0.01. By prohibiting sub-penny pricing, Regulation NMS
sought to prevent market participants from stepping ahead of each
other for a nominal or infinitesimally small amount, thereby
discouraging the use of limit orders, and also to prevent
overburdening market participants' systems due to increased
messaging traffic resulting from sub penny orders. Although SSFs are
not NMS securities, OneChicago has considered the prohibition on
sub-penny pricing in NMS securities, and has concluded that the
concerns raised by sub-penny pricing are not applicable to SSFs and
unnecessary to impose on the SSF market.
    \12\ The average trade quantity on the CLOB is 5 contracts.
Accordingly, the fourth decimal place would represent, on average, a
$0.05 difference in trade value, which may translate to a meaningful
interest rate, depending on the trade price and time until
expiration. On a typical CLOB trade, the fourth decimal place may
represent 0.1 to 3 bps in interest. By way of example, a 5 contract
trade at a futures trade price of $13.9835 results in a notional
value of $6991.75. Without the third and fourth decimal places (a
futures trade price of $13.98), the notional value would be
$6990.00, a difference of $1.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, unlike the equity markets in which hundreds of trades
occur every second, OneChicago's markets are strictly governed to limit
order frequency. The overwhelming majority of volume executed on the
exchange occurs through the use of manual front-end systems, whereby
the individual trader fills out each order ticket with the relevant
order parameters. Further, even market participants trading
programmatically (and who are not market-makers) are limited to a
maximum of ten orders per second across all products, which minimizes
the potential that any one market participant would repeatedly enter
and modify orders in one particular product.
    Accordingly, OneChicago believes that it is unlikely that limit
orders will be frequently stepped ahead of due to the low messaging
quantity threshold permitted by the Exchange. OneChicago notes on this
topic that if a limit order loses execution priority to another limit
order priced exactly $0.0001 above (in the case of a buy order) or
$0.0001 below (in the case of a sell order) the resting order, this
loss of priority typically would not have occurred for a nominal
amount.\13\ As described above, the fourth decimal place of an SSF
trade can represent a different dollar value depending on the price of
the underlying security and the days left until expiry of the futures
contract. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that in most instances,
the new limit order would have provided actual interest rate
improvement over the resting order. In fact, the Exchange predicts that
this rule change will encourage the entry of more competitive orders
due to increased participation by both retail investors and market
makers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As described in footnote 12, $0.05 may represent a spectrum
of interest rates, depending on the futures trade price and days
remaining until expiry.
    \14\ OneChicago notes that its spread marketplace has been
trading on a centralized order book in four decimal places since
July 20, 2015. Since that time, OneChicago has not observed any
instance in which a limit order for a spread transaction was stepped
ahead of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, OneChicago does not anticipate any capacity burden
generated as a result of permitting four

decimal quoting and trading, as OneChicago does not expect its
messaging traffic to increase as a result of this change. Therefore,
the Exchange does not believe quote submission or market data receipt
will be impacted in any anyway. Moreover, four decimal pricing is
currently commonplace in the futures industry outside of SSFs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Many futures products tied to interest rates trade in
greater than two decimals. Although the per-contract notional value
in these products are usually larger than the typical outright SSF
notional value, OneChicago believes the need for interest rate
precision is consistent across all of these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Retail Investors
    OneChicago believes that the primary beneficiaries of this rule
change will be retail investors. OneChicago's SSFs offer retail
investors an alternative to financing their equity securities positions
via margin loan from their brokers, and offer these investors the
ability to acquire synthetic exposure to equity securities at
competitive financing rates. OneChicago believes the lack of four
decimal pricing for outright trades has hampered the ability of the
Exchange's market makers to make competitive markets which would allow
retail investors to transact at competitive financing rates. With four
decimal pricing in the CLOB for outright trades, OneChicago anticipates
that new market makers will enter the marketplace and make more
competitive markets, increasing trading activity on the CLOB.
    Further, as stated above, this rule change will encourage market
participants to transact in OneChicago's CLOB, rather than in the block
marketplace, thereby increasing competition in trading and quoting
these products. Currently, block trades, which are privately negotiated
transactions available only to eligible contract participants, as that
term is defined in section 1a(18) of the CEA,\16\ are already priced in
four decimals. This change will place retail investors, who may not
access the block marketplace, on equal footing with these more
sophisticated participants by permitting them to price their SSF trades
in up to four decimals. As a result of this bifurcated structure in
which sophisticated parties can transact blocks in four decimals, but
retail investors may not, retail investors are at a disadvantage as
they receive less competitive interest rates on their CLOB trades.\17\
In addition to permitting retail investors to trade in four decimals,
OneChicago anticipates this rule change will cause sophisticated
participants who can already transact in four decimal places in the
block marketplace to begin to transition their activity to the CLOB. By
aggregating and concentrating more SSF activity in the CLOB, OneChicago
expects that all market participants will transact at more competitive
levels than those present today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(18).
    \17\ Although block trades typically have greater trade
quantities than outright trades, block trades may trade in minimum
quantities as low as five contracts for OneChicago's NoDivRisk
products. Currently, participants in the block marketplace receive
more favorable interest rates than those in the outright CLOB
marketplace due to (1) the ability to pre-hedge block trades, and
(2) four decimal pricing, which is currently available in blocks but
not for outright trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring of Four Decimal Trading
    As stated above, OneChicago does not anticipate that the transition
of outright SSF trading to four decimals will harm or disadvantage any
market participant. Nonetheless, in order to address any concerns
related to stepping ahead, the Exchange plans to monitor its trading
activity to determine whether permitting outright SSFs to trade in up
to four decimal places has caused any harm to investors or
deterioration in market quality. OneChicago plans to monitor this in
two ways. First, the Exchange plans to monitor its trading directly for
any incidence of stepping ahead. To do so, the Exchange will implement
surveillance procedures that identify instances in which a market
participant uses the third or fourth decimal place to step ahead of
limit orders on the CLOB. OneChicago will review such activity and
determine whether there is a pattern or practice of conduct not in line
with just and equitable principles of trade. Second, OneChicago will,
on a periodic basis, assess its market quality by looking to various
factors such as spreads, market depth, and number and diversity of
market participants. Using this two-pronged approached, the Exchange
can determine whether permitting quoting and trading of SSFs in up to
four decimals has promoted market quality, while ensuring market
integrity. If OneChicago makes the determination that four decimal
pricing has harmed either market quality or integrity, the Exchange
will amend OneChicago Rule 902 to return to two decimal pricing. In
order to provide its market participants with sufficient notice
regarding this this [sic] change, OneChicago plans to distribute a
Notice to Members before implementing the change to permit its market
participants to make any necessary technology or operational changes,
which OneChicago anticipates will be minimal.
2. Statutory Basis
    OneChicago believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \19\ in particular. The proposed rule
change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) because it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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; and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all
market participants. The ability to trade outright transactions in up
to four decimal places will not be limited to any class of market
participant, and all market participants are eligible to trade on
OneChicago's CLOB. The requirements to trade on the CLOB are no more
restrictive than the requirements to trade block, EFP, or spread
transactions. Permitting outright transactions to trade in up to four
decimal allows all OneChicago participants to trade in the same way,
thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade.
    OneChicago has considered whether permitting SSFs to quote and
trade in up to four decimal places could permit manipulation or other
violative activity in either the underlying equity or SSF, and has
determined that no such concern exists. Four decimal pricing for SSFs
would not present any new methods for market participants to engage in
behavior that may be violative of Exchange Rules or any applicable law.
    Further, as currently drafted, OneChicago Rule 902(e) provides that
the Exchange may amend the minimum price fluctuation for SSFs without
amending the text of the rule itself. Specifically, the clause ``or as
otherwise stated by the Exchange'' effectively permits the Exchange to
set a minimum price fluctuation by notice or other means. OneChicago is
now proposing to amend OneChicago Rule 902(e) to delete

this clause, thereby providing certainty to market participants that
the minimum price fluctuation is stated solely in OneChicago Rule 902,
and will not be amended other than through the rule change process.
OneChicago believes that its existing surveillance systems and capacity
is sufficient to monitor and review trading activity for any violative
trading in the SSF market.

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

    OneChicago does not believe that the rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change simply allows an
additional type of transaction to be priced in up to four decimal
places. This change will allow all market participants to more
precisely price the interest rate component of their outright
transactions. By pricing futures trades more precisely, market
participants will be able to submit more competitive bids and offers on
the Exchange. Further, as described above, OneChicago believes this
rule change will increase competition in that it will allow all market
participants to transact at four decimal places, and not just
sophisticated parties who qualify as eligible contract participants.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective on June 16, 2017 and
will be implemented on July 10, 2017.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-OC-2017-02 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-OC-2017-02. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2017-02 and should be
submitted on or before July 21, 2017.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13707 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P