[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28112-28115]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10055]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88817; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Definition of Bulk Messages in Rule 16.1 and Amend Rule
21.1(l)(3)

May 6, 2020.
    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 April 24, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Options'')
proposes to amend its definition of bulk messages in Rule 16.1 and
amend Rule 21.1(l)(3). The text of the proposed rule change is provided
in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, BZX Options Market-Makers submit their quotes
electronically as bulk messages. A bulk message is a single electronic
message a User may submit to the Exchange in which the User may enter,
modify, or cancel up to an Exchange-specified number of bids and
offers. Bulk message functionality was adopted by the Exchange in
connection with a recent technology migration and designed to be
consistent with the technology offering of the Exchange's affiliated
options exchanges, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'') and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2'').\3\ Currently, the definition of a bulk message
in Rule 16.1 provides that a User may submit a bulk message through a
bulk port, which is a dedicated logical port. Current Rule 21.1(l)(3)
provides that a bulk message submitted through a logical port is
subject to certain conditions, including that a Market-Maker with an
appointment in a class may designate a bulk message for that class as
Post Only or Book Only, and other Users must designate a bulk message
for that class as Post Only. Additionally, Users may submit single
orders through a bulk port in the same manner as Users may submit
orders to the Exchange through any other type of port, including
designated with any order instruction and any time-in-force. The
primary purpose of bulk ports and bulk messages is to encourage
liquidity provision, particularly by Market-Makers, on the Exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 84928 (December 21,
2018) 83 FR 67794 (December 31, 2018) (SR-CboeBZX-2018-092).
    \4\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of bulk messages in
Rule 16.1 so that Market-Makers may exclusively submit bulk messages
and proposes to update Rule 21.1(l)(3) regarding bulk ports
accordingly. Specifically, the proposed rule change amends the
definition of bulk messages to provide that the term ``bulk message''
means a single electronic message a User submits with an M Capacity
(i.e., for the account of a Market-Maker) to the Exchange in which the
User may enter, modify, or cancel up to an Exchange-specified number of
bids and offers. In this way, the bulk messages submitted through bulk
ports would be attributed only to Market-Maker quotes. In line with the
proposed amendment to the User Capacity permitted to submit bulk
messages, the proposed rule change also updates Rule 21.1(l)(3)(A)(ii)
to provide that, while a Market-Maker with an appointment in a class
may designate a bulk message for that class as a Post Only or Book
Only, a non-appointed Market-Maker, as opposed to any other User, must
designate a bulk message for that class as Post Only. This is currently
the case for Market-Makers submitting bulk messages in non-appointed
classes and the proposed rule change merely reflects the specific type
of other User (i.e., Market-Makers not appointed in a class) that will
be able to submit bulk messages. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed rule change updates the term User to Market-Maker in Rules
21.1(l)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) to reflect the proposed amendment to the
User Capacity permitted to submit bulk messages and provide uniformity
for the terms used throughout Rule 21.1(l)(3)(A).
    The Exchange notes that the vast majority of bulk messages
submitted through bulk ports are for the account of a Market-Maker.
Indeed, over the second half of March 2020 the Exchange observed that
only 0.05% of bulk messages submitted through bulk ports were submitted
by non-Market-Makers. Because so few non-Market-Maker Users opt to use
this functionality, the Exchange believes that the current demand does
not warrant the Exchange resources necessary for ongoing System support
for non-Market-Maker bulk messaging. The Exchange notes that the use of
bulk messages is voluntary and non-Market-Maker Users will continue to
be able to submit their single orders and auction responses through
bulk ports and other logical ports in the same manner as they currently
do.
    The Exchange notes that limiting the offering of quoting
functionality to Market-Makers is not new or unique as other options
exchanges currently offer quoting functionality only to their market
makers.\5\ Indeed, bulk message functionality (including submission
through bulk ports) is geared toward encouraging Market-Maker quoting
on the Exchange. For example, the requirement that bulk messages have a
time-in-force of Day is intended to be consistent with a Market-Maker's
obligation to update its quotes in response to changed market
conditions in its appointed classes, and the provision that allows
Market-Makers to designate their bulk messages as Post Only or Book
Only (as opposed to the limitation to Post Only for other Users' bulk
messages) is intended to provide Market-Makers with flexibility to use
these instructions with respect to their bulk messages as additional
tools to meet their quoting obligations in a manner they deem
appropriate.\6\ Additionally, the Exchange notes that its affiliated
options exchanges, C2 and Cboe Options, as well as Cboe EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX Options'') are simultaneously submitting filings to update
their corresponding rules in connection with bulk messages. Thus, the
proposed rule change is intended to continue to harmonize technology
offerings across the affiliated options exchanges. Additionally, C2 and
Cboe Options just recently adopted bulk message functionality to
replace substantially similar quotation functionality that was
previously offered only to their market makers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Nasdaq Phlx Options 1, Section 7(a)(B), which provides
for its ``Specialized Quote Feed'', a quoting interface offered
specifically to market makers on Phlx; and see generally MIAX
Options Rule 517, which provide for the different types of quotes
and quoting mechanisms offered specifically to market makers on MIAX
Options.
    \6\ See supra note 3.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 86374 (July 15, 2019) 84
FR 34963 (July 19, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-033); and Securities Exchange
Release No. 85038 (February 1, 2019) 84 FR 2598 (February 7, 2019)
(SR-C2-2018-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and
benefit investors, because it will delete from the Rules a
functionality that is currently rarely used and as a result, the
Exchange will no longer offer, thereby promoting transparency in its
Rules. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges currently offer
their quoting functionality and/or interfaces exclusively to market
makers on their exchanges.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will benefit investors by continuing to provide a
harmonized technology offering across the Exchange and its affiliated
options exchanges.\12\ Also, up until recently, C2 and Cboe Options
offered exclusively to their market makers quoting functionality
substantially similar to current bulk message functionality.\13\
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
raises any new or novel issues for Users and will not affect the
protection of investors and the public interest because this
functionality is so infrequently used by non-Market-Makers. In addition
to this, the Exchange notes that the submission of bulk messages to the
Exchange is voluntary, and, as stated, non-Market-Makers will continue
to be able to submit single order and auction responses through bulk
ports and other logical ports to connect to the Exchange and enter
orders, receive date, and access information. Also, the Exchange
believes that the low non-Market-Maker usage rate of bulk message
functionality does not warrant the continued resources necessary for
System support of bulk messaging for non-Market-Maker Users. As a
result, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system by allowing the Exchange to reallocate System
capacity and resources to other System functionality, which benefits
all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 3.
    \12\ As stated, C2, Cboe Options, and EDGX Options intend to
simultaneously submit filing to update their rules in connection
with bulk messages in the same manner as proposed herein.
    \13\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change would permit unfair discrimination as, according to March 2020
data, a negligible portion of bulk messages are submitted by non-
Market-Makers, and, as stated above, bulk message functionality is
principally designed to assist Market-Makers in providing liquidity to
the Exchange. The options market is driven by Market-Maker quotes, and
thus Market-Maker quotes are critical to provide liquidity to the
market and contribute to price discovery for investors. Additionally,
Market-Makers are subject to continuous quoting obligations (which
other Users are not), and bulk message functionality provides Market-
Makers with a means to help them satisfy these obligations. Indeed,
when bulk messages were adopted, the Exchange expected Market-Makers
regularly to use bulk messages to input and update prices on multiple
series of options at the same time, and noted that the functionality
was intended primarily for the use of Market-Makers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because bulk messages
functionality will be available for all Exchange Market-Makers in the
same manner as it is today. Non-Market-Makers will continue to be able
to submit their single orders and auction responses through bulk ports,
as well as all orders and other data through logical ports, in the same
manner as they currently do. As noted above, this is consistent with
the primary purpose of bulk messages, which is to encourage Market-
Maker quoting and liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange further notes
that if any non-Market-Makers wish to submit liquidity to the Exchange
using bulk messages they are free to register as an Exchange Market-
Maker and choose the appointed classes in which they wish to quote.
Non-Market-Makers so infrequently use bulk message functionality, thus
the proposed rule change is not expected to have any impact on their
business need.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because other
options exchanges currently limit their quoting functionality and/or
interface to market makers on their exchanges.\15\ Additionally, as
noted above, until recently the Exchange's affiliated options
exchanges, C2 and Cboe Options, both which intend to update their
corresponding bulk message rules in the same manner as proposed herein,
offered exclusively to their market makers quoting functionality
substantially similar to the current bulk message functionality.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 5.
    \16\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \19\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \20\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange represents that it disseminated advance notice of the
proposed change to market participants on March 27, 2020 and plans to
announce a specific implementation date in the near future. In
addition, the Exchange states that the proposal is consistent with
quoting functionality on other options exchanges which currently offer
such functionality only

to their market makers. The Commission notes that the proposed rule
change does not present any unique or novel regulatory issues.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-037 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-CboeBZX-2020-037. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-037 and should be submitted
on or before June 2, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10055 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17161-17166]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0654; FRL-9961-01-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; CT; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
This revision includes regulatory amendments that

require gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) to decommission their
Stage II vapor recovery systems on or before July 1, 2015, and a
demonstration that such removal is consistent with the Clean Air Act
and EPA guidance. This revision also includes regulatory amendments
that strengthen Connecticut's requirements for Stage I vapor recovery
systems at GDFs. The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of Connecticut's revised vapor recovery regulations. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2015-0654 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On September 14, 2015, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of Connecticut's
newly adopted section 22a-174-30a, Stage I Vapor Recovery, of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) as well as the
following revised RCSA sections:
     22a-174-3a, Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary
Sources, specifically 22a-174-3a(a);
     22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions,
specifically 22a-174-20(a), 22a-174-20(b)(1) through (b)(16), and 22a-
174-20(ee); and
     22a-174-32, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
for Volatile Organic Compounds, specifically 22a-174-32(b).
    In addition, this SIP revision also includes Public Act No. 13-120,
An Act Concerning Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. Connecticut Public
Act No. 13-120 revises section 22a-174e of the Connecticut General
Statutes (CGS). The regulations and statute require the decommissioning
of Stage II vapor recovery systems and strengthen Stage I vapor
recovery requirements. The SIP submittal also includes a demonstration
that removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems in Connecticut is
consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. Finally, the SIP
revision includes the withdrawal of RCSA section 22a-174-30, Dispensing
of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery, from the Connecticut
SIP.
    Connecticut subsequently modified the September 14, 2015 SIP
revision via a letter dated January 20, 2017 wherein Connecticut
withdrew RCSA 22a-174-3a(a) from consideration as part of this SIP
revision.
    Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are
two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from
vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II vapor recovery systems are
installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling
fuel vapors at the gasoline pump. The system carries the vapors back to
the underground storage tank at the GDF to prevent the vapors from
escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed
directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the
gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in
the carbon canisters are then combusted in the engine when the
automobile is in operation.
    Stage II vapor recovery systems and vehicle ORVR systems were
initially both required by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Also, under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures. CAA
section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR for
light-duty vehicles (passenger cars). EPA adopted these requirements in
1994, at which point moderate ozone nonattainment areas were no longer
subject to the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery
requirements. ORVR equipment has been phased in for new passenger
vehicles beginning with model year 1998, and starting with model year
2001 for light-duty trucks and most heavy-duty gasoline powered
vehicles. ORVR equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-
powered light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles
since 2006.
    During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided
volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in ozone nonattainment areas
and certain attainment areas of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR
systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems would eventually become
largely redundant technologies, and provided authority to EPA to allow
states to remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs after
EPA finds that ORVR is in ``widespread use.'' Effective May 16, 2012,
the date the final rule was published in the Federal Register (see 77
FR 28772), EPA determined that ORVR systems are in widespread use
nationwide for control of gasoline emissions during refueling of
vehicles at GDFs. As of the end of 2016, EPA estimates that more than
88 percent of gasoline refueling nationwide occurs with ORVR-equipped
vehicles.\1\ Thus, Stage II vapor recovery programs have become largely
redundant control systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems achieve
an ever declining emissions benefit as more ORVR-equipped vehicles
continue to enter the

on-road motor vehicle fleet.\2\ In the May 16, 2012 rulemaking, EPA
also exercised its authority under CAA section 202(a)(6) to waive
certain federal statutory requirements for Stage II vapor recovery
systems at GDFs. This decision exempts all new ozone nonattainment
areas classified serious or above from the requirement to adopt Stage
II vapor recovery programs. Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012 rulemaking also
noted that any state currently implementing Stage II vapor recovery
programs may submit SIP revisions that would allow for the phase-out of
Stage II vapor recovery systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's Guidance Document,
``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from
State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures'' (EPA-
457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012).
    \2\ In areas where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor
recovery systems are used, the differences in operational design
characteristics between ORVR and some configurations of these Stage
II vapor recovery systems result in the reduction of overall control
system efficiency compared to what could have been achieved relative
to the individual control efficiencies of either ORVR or Stage II
emissions from the vehicle fuel tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stage I vapor recovery systems are systems that capture vapors
displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline tank truck
deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an aboveground or
underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the
storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank.
The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into
the delivery truck's tank. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank
exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however the Stage I vapor
recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced
vapors being released into the atmosphere.
    Stage I vapor recovery systems have been in place since the 1970s.
EPA has issued the following guidance regarding Stage I systems:
``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations'' (November 1975, EPA Online Publication 450R75102), which is
regarded as the control techniques guideline (CTG) for the control of
VOC emissions from this source category; and the EPA document ``Model
Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control
Technology'' (Staff Working Draft, June 1992) contains a model Stage I
regulation.
    In more recent years, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
required Stage I vapor recovery systems capable of achieving vapor
control efficiencies higher than those achieved by traditional systems.
These systems are commonly referred to as Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR)
systems. One of the essential components of these CARB Stage I EVR
systems are CARB EVR Pressure/Vacuum (P/V) vent valves. These valves
are manufactured of better quality materials and construction, when
compared to non-CARB EVR P/V vent valves, and are thus expected to
reduce P/V vent valve failures and decrease emissions.

II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    The Connecticut Stage II vapor recovery program requirements,
codified in RCSA section 22a-174-30, Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and
Stage II Vapor Recovery, were initially approved into the Connecticut
SIP on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65930). Connecticut's rule required
GDFs throughout the state to install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
On August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761), EPA approved a revised version of
RCSA section 22a-174-30, into the Connecticut SIP, which added new
requirements for GDFs to install P/V vent valves.
    On September 14, 2015, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision
consisting of its request to withdraw RCSA section 22a-174-30 from the
SIP, and add RCSA section 22a-174-30a to the Connecticut SIP.
Connecticut's request to withdraw RCSA section 22a-174-30 from the SIP
stems from the State's repeal of this regulation as of July 1, 2015.
This SIP revision also includes revisions to RCSA sections 22a-174-
20(a), 22a-174-20(b)(1) through (b)(16), 22a-174-20(ee), and 22-174-
32(b), as well as the addition of Connecticut Public Act No. 13-120.
    This SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that prohibit all
GDFs from installing Stage II vapor recovery systems as of June 18,
2013, the effective date of Public Act No. 13-120 (i.e. the effective
date of the revised CGS section 22a-174e). The SIP revision also
includes legislative and regulatory amendments, via Public Act No. 13-
120, that require all GDFs equipped with Stage II vapor recovery
systems to decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems on or
before July 1, 2015. Connecticut's regulations were then revised,
effective July 8, 2015, to remove the requirement for the installation
and operation of Stage II vapor recovery systems, while retaining the
Stage I vapor recovery requirements for GDFs, so that the regulations
conform to the requirements of Public Act No. 13-120. In addition,
Connecticut Public Act No. 13-120, as well as RCSA section 22a-174-30a,
increase the Stage I vapor control equipment testing frequency at GDFs
from a three-year interval to annual testing. RCSA section 22a-174-30a
also requires GDFs to install a CARB-approved EVR pressure/vacuum (P/V)
vent valve when any existing P/V vent valve is replaced. These latter
changes to Connecticut's Stage I vapor control regulations strengthened
the regulatory requirements.
    Connecticut's RCSA subsections 22a-174-20(ee)(2) and 22a-174-
32(b)(3)(E)(ii) were revised to appropriately cite the newly adopted
RCSA section 22a-174-30a where reference was previously made to, the
now repealed, RCSA section 22a-174-30. Also, Connecticut's RCSA
subsection 22a-174-20(a)(7) was revised to clarify the requirements for
the external surfaces of aboveground storage tanks containing VOCs.
    The Stage I vapor recovery requirements for GDFs contained in RCSA
subsections 22a-174-20(b)(6) through (b)(9), as well as those contained
in, the now repealed, RCSA section 22a-174-30, were consolidated and
moved into the new RCSA section 22a-174-30a. Connecticut's RCSA
subsections 22a-174-20(b)(10) through (b)(16), were revised to clarify
and strengthen the Connecticut Stage I vapor recovery program
requirements for fuel tank trucks.
    Furthermore, the revised Stage I regulations require any GDF with a
monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more on or after July 1, 2015
to maintain Stage I systems that meet the same management practices
required by EPA's National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision also includes a
narrative demonstration supporting the discontinuation of the
Connecticut Stage II vapor recovery program. This demonstration
consists of an analysis that the Stage II vapor recovery controls
provide only de minimis emission reductions due to the prevalence of
ORVR-equipped vehicles in Connecticut in 2013. In fact, Connecticut's
September 14, 2015 submission explained that any VOC emissions increase
that may have occurred in 2013 or 2014 were too small to interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. Connecticut's submission also stated, and demonstrated,
that continuing a Stage II vapor recovery program from 2015 and beyond
would have resulted in an increase in refueling emissions due to excess
emissions from the incompatibility of ORVR and certain Stage II
systems.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    As noted above, Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision
includes the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the
State. EPA has reviewed Connecticut's repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-
30, Public Act No. 13-120, and the accompanying SIP narrative, and has
concluded that Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision is
consistent with EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772; May 16, 2012)
and EPA's ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures'' (EPA-457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter referred to as
EPA's Guidance Document.
    Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision includes a CAA
section 184(b)(2) ``comparable measures'' demonstration and a CAA
section 110(l) anti-back sliding demonstration based on equations in
EPA's Guidance Document. According to these calculations, the potential
loss of refueling emission reductions from removing Stage II vapor
recovery systems in 2013 is 4.3 percent, thus meeting the 10 percent de
minimis recommendation in EPA's Guidance Document. The fact that the
Connecticut demonstration is based on 2013, while the regulation does
not require decommissioning of all Stage II systems until 2015,
represents a conservative estimate as the potential loss of emission
reductions decreases over time as more and more ORVR systems are
phased-in. Furthermore, Connecticut estimates that retaining Stage II
vapor recovery systems beyond 2015 would have resulted in an increase
in emissions \3\ due to the excess emissions generated by the refueling
of ORVR-equipped vehicles at the incompatible Stage II vapor recovery
systems found throughout Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Table D-3: 2015 Stage II calculations'' in Appendix D
of Attachment A of Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision also
includes calculations illustrating that the overall emissions effect of
removing the Stage II vapor recovery program would be an increase of
about 200 tons of VOC in 2013. EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory
database, Version 2, illustrates that Connecticut's statewide
anthropogenic VOC emissions were about 79,937 tons (see https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data). Therefore, the VOC emissions increase of 200 tons
per year calculated by Connecticut is only about 0.3 percent of the
total anthropogenic VOC emissions in Connecticut. Also, as noted above,
these foregone emissions reductions in the near term continue to
diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in continues. Thus, EPA
believes that the resulting temporary increase in VOC emissions will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Furthermore, Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's Guidance Document
illustrates that by the end of 2012 about 71% of the vehicles in the
national motor vehicle fleet would have been equipped with ORVR.\4\ The
number of ORVR-equipped vehicles in Connecticut at that time was likely
even higher, however, due to Connecticut having a more accelerated
motor vehicle fleet turnover when compared to the national motor
vehicle fleet.\5\ Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's Guidance Document also
illustrates that by the end of 2012, about 78% of gasoline dispensed
nationally would have been to ORVR-equipped vehicles, which is also
likely to have been higher in Connecticut due to a newer motor vehicle
fleet.\6\ At that point in time, since a vast majority of Connecticut's
vehicles being refueled at GDFs would have been equipped with ORVR
systems, the ORVR systems would have been controlling the VOC
emissions, making Stage II vapor recovery systems a redundant, and
potentially incompatible, emissions control technology in Connecticut.
Therefore, removing the Stage II systems is not expected to result in a
significant emissions increase, and is actually expected to avoid
emissions increases that would have resulted from the incompatibility
of some Stage II systems with ORVR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although Connecticut requires that all GDFs decommission
their Stage II vapor recovery systems on or before July 1, 2015,
GDFs could have begun decommissioning Stage II systems as of June
18, 2013 (the effective date of Public Act No. 13-120). An analysis
of the removal of Stage II controls by the end of 2012 is a
conservative calculation of the emission impacts of decommissioning
Stage II vapor recovery systems, due to future years having a
greater percentage of ORVR-equipped vehicles in the motor vehicle
fleet.
    \5\ Final Report Analysis of Future Options For Connecticut's
Gasoline Dispensing Facility Vapor Control Program, de la Torre-
Klausmeier Consulting, Inc., June 4, 2012, includes an analysis
conducted using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
model which illustrates that by the end of 2012, the fraction of
gasoline vehicles in Connecticut equipped with ORVR was about 75%.
This is a slightly more accelerated fleet turn-over estimate than
EPA's end of 2012 calendar year national estimate of 71.4% ORVR
penetration in the national gasoline fueled motor vehicle fleet.
    \6\ Ibid. In 2012, 85% of gasoline dispensed in Connecticut was
dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles. This is much more accelerated
than EPA's end of 2012 calendar year national estimate of 77.7% of
fuel dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Stage I vapor recovery requirements, Connecticut's
adopted regulation RCSA section 22a-174-30a is more stringent than the
previously approved version of the rule,\7\ thus meeting the CAA
section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements. As noted above, the
revised rule requires upgrades of P/V vent valves to a CARB-approved
EVR P/V vent valve for all P/V vent valves being replaced after July 1,
2015. Connecticut's adopted RCSA section 22a-174-30a also meets the CAA
section 110(l) requirements because of the increased frequency of Stage
I vapor control equipment testing at GDFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's most recent approval of RCSA section 22a-174-30 was on
August 31, 2006 (see 71 FR 51761). As noted in this proposed
rulemaking, Connecticut's Stage I vapor recovery requirements are
now found in the adopted RCSA section 22a-174-30a, effective July 8,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed Connecticut's newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-
30a, ``Stage I Vapor Recovery,'' and we have determined that it
adequately incorporates the necessary Stage I Vapor Recovery program
requirements for GDFs that were previously contained in the, now
repealed, RCSA section 22a-174-30 (see 71 FR 51761; August 31, 2006),
as well as those Stage I vapor recovery requirements for GDFs that were
previously contained within RCSA subsections 22a-174-20(b)(6) through
(b)(9).
    Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP submittal also includes
revisions to section 22a-174-20. EPA initially approved Connecticut's
RCSA section 22a-174-20 on May 31, 1972 (see 37 FR 23085) and most
recently approved revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-20 on November 3,
2015 (see 80 FR 67642). EPA has reviewed Connecticut's revised RCSA
sections 22a-174-20(a), 22a-174-20(b)(1) through 22a-174-20(b)(16), and
22a-174-20(ee) and has found that they are at least as stringent as the
previously SIP-approved version of the regulation. The following
Connecticut RCSA sections are the most significant changes from what
was previously approved into the Connecticut SIP:
    1. Subsection 22a-174-20(a)(7) was revised to clarify the
requirements for the external surfaces of aboveground storage tanks
containing VOCs, thus strengthening the subsection previously approved
into the Connecticut SIP;
    2. Subsections 22a-174-20(b)(6) through (b)(9), related to Stage I
vapor recovery program requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities,
were

removed from the amended 22a-174-20, since those provisions were moved
into the new RCSA section 22a-174-30a;
    3. Subsections 22a-174-20(b)(10) through 22a-174-20(b)(16) were
revised to clarify and strengthen the Connecticut Stage I vapor
recovery program requirements for fuel tank trucks; \8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The revisions of subsections 22a-174-20(b)(10) through
(b)(16) clarify and strengthen the Connecticut Stage I vapor
recovery program requirements for fuel tank trucks by adding
requirements such as: Requiring all vapor return hoses, couplers and
adapters used in gasoline delivery to be vapor-tight; requiring fuel
tank trucks to dispense gasoline to a stationary storage tank having
an approved control system in a manner that does not interfere with
the collection efficiency of the control system; and requiring fuel
tank trucks to not transfer or allow the transfer of gasoline from a
delivery vehicle to a dispensing facility stationary storage tank if
there are leaks in pressure/vacuum relief valves or hatch covers of
the delivery vehicle, in the truck tanks or in associated vapor and
liquid lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Subsection 22a-174-20(ee)(2) was revised to appropriately cite
the newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-30a where reference was
previously made to, the now repealed, RCSA section 22a-174-30.
    The above revisions are all reasonable and meet the Clean Air Act's
section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements because they are more
stringent than the versions of the regulations previously approved into
the Connecticut SIP. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the revised
RCSA section 22a-174-20(a), the revised RCSA sections 22a-174-20(b)(1)
through 22a-174-20(b)(16), and the revised RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee)
into the Connecticut SIP.
    In addition, Connecticut's September 2015 SIP submittal includes
revised RCSA 22a-174-32(b), relating to the applicability of Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for volatile organic
compounds. EPA initially approved Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-32
on March 10, 1999 (see 64 FR 12024) and subsequently approved revisions
to this rule, with the most recently approved revisions to RCSA section
22a-174-32 on October 24, 2005 (see 70 FR 61384). The amended
subsection 22a-174-32(b)(3)(E)(ii) was revised to appropriately cite
the newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-30a where reference was
previously made to, the now repealed, RCSA section 22a-174-30.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve revised RCSA section 22a-174-
32(b) into the Connecticut SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP
revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate
into the Connecticut SIP, the following regulations and statute: Newly
adopted RCSA section 22a-174-30a; revised RCSA subsection 22a-174-
20(a); revised RCSA subsections 22a-174-20(b)(1) through (b)(16);
revised RCSA subsection 22a-174-20(ee), and revised RCSA subsection
22a-174-32(b); as well as Public Act No. 13-120. EPA is also proposing
to approve Connecticut's request to withdraw RCSA section 22a-174-30
from the Connecticut SIP because, as described earlier, it has been
replaced with RCSA section 22a-174-30a, which is more stringent. EPA is
proposing to approve this SIP revision because it meets all applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance, and it will not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable
further progress towards attainment of any NAAQS, or with any other
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
    Connecticut's September 14, 2015 SIP revision also satisfies the
``comparable measures'' requirement of CAA section 184(b)(2), because
as stated in EPA's Guidance Document, ``the comparable measures
requirement is satisfied if phasing out a Stage II control program in a
particular area is estimated to have no, or a de minimis, incremental
loss of area-wide emissions control.'' As noted above, Connecticut's
SIP revision meets, and as of the year 2015 goes beyond, the de minimis
criteria outlined in EPA's Guidance Document. In addition, since the
resulting temporary emissions increase from the removal of Stage II
controls prior to the year 2015 were de minimis, the anti-back sliding
requirements of CAA section 110(l) have also been satisfied. As noted
in Connecticut's September 14, 2015 submission, these revisions to
Connecticut's SIP are approvable under CAA section 110(l) because any
VOC emissions increase that may have occurred in 2013 or 2014 were too
small to interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Connecticut's submission also
stated, and demonstrated, that continuing a Stage II vapor recovery
program from 2015 and beyond would have resulted in an increase in
refueling emissions due to incompatibility excess emissions. Preventing
an increase in refueling emissions is consistent with the non-
interference requirements of the CAA in section 110(l).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Connecticut's regulations and statute cited in Section IV. of
this proposed rulemaking. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA.

VI. 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 proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 16, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-07147 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 3, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-6719

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AERO SERVICIOS AZTECA, S.A. de C.V.
                    Date Filed:  January 13, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  January 15, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Eugene E. Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>          DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  February 3,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 3, 2004, through
February 3, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition
f牯爠癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍
湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬
汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯
⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

3


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Heres some research links you might find useful. In my experience, basing policies on scientific evidence instead of random assumptions tends to be more effective and popular:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195347257/Nicotine-and-Health
http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23033998
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-18.pdf
http://casaa.org/Scientific_Opinon.html
http://casaa.org/Clinical_Research.html
http://casaa.org/Lab_Reports__ecigarettes.html

I quit smoking 2 years ago thanks to this product and haven't had a single puff of tobacco smoke since. Don't turn away from me, don't let me down.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 42951-42952]
[DOCID:fr25au09-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0183]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Training
Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Operators

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval its request to extend a currently-approved
information collection request (ICR) entitled, ``Training Certification
for Entry-level CMV Operators,'' that relates to the training
requirements for drivers applying for a commercial driver's license
(CDL). There is no change from the burden estimate approved by OMB for
this ICR on March 11, 2008. On May 28, 2009, FMCSA published a Federal
Register notice (74 FR 25607) allowing for a 60-day comment period on
the extension of this ICR. The Agency did not receive any comments in
response to this notice.

DATES: Please send your comments by September 24, 2009. OMB must
receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2009-0183. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Office of the
Secretary, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0028.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved information
collection request.
    Respondents: Entry-level CMV drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 45,611.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Expiration Date: September 30, 2009.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 7,602 hours. FMCSA estimates that an
entry-level driver requires approximately 10 minutes to complete the
tasks necessary to comply with the regulation. Those tasks are:
photocopying the training certificate, giving the photocopy to the
motor carrier employer, and placing the original of the certificate in
a personal file. Therefore, the annual burden for all entry-level
drivers of CMVs is 7,602 hours [45,611 respondents x 10 minutes/60
minutes to complete a response = 7,601.8 hours (rounded to 7,602
hours)].
    Definitions: ``Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV)'': A motor vehicle
operated in commerce and having a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001
pounds or more, regardless of actual weight, or designed to transport
16 or more passengers, or used to transport placardable and dangerous
hazardous materials (49 CFR 383.5). The term ``CMV'' is limited to this
definition in this document; the term ``CDL driver'' is used because
the operators of these CMVs are required to have a valid commercial
driver's license (CDL). This rule currently applies solely to ``entry-
level'' CDL drivers, i.e. those who have less than 1 year of experience
operating a CMV in interstate commerce (49 CFR 380.502(b)).
    Background:
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualification and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
U.S.C. 3502(b)]. This Act is applicable to interstate commerce and not
intrastate commerce. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
(CMVSA) created the CDL program and defined ``commerce'' in such as way
as to include interstate and intrastate operations (49 U.S.C.
31302(2),(4)]. Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240,
December 18, 1991) directed the FHWA to ``commence a rulemaking
proceeding on the need to require training of all entry-level drivers
of CMVs.'' The Congress did not explicitly provide that ISTEA extended
to operations in intrastate commerce. In view of the nature of the
concurrent authority created by the CMVSA and the Motor Carrier Act of
1935, and the absence of direction from the Congress in ISTEA, FMCSA
has decided that entry-level training requirements should be confined
to those drivers applying for a CDL who intend to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

    The text of the 60-day notice of the proposed extension of this
ICB, published on May 28, 2009 (74 FR 25607), failed to cite the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935, upon which this ICR is primarily based. Today's
authority for this driver training activity is cited correctly and as
it should have been cited in that notice. There has been no change in
the statutory authority for this training since publication of the 60-
day notice. For a more details of the Agency's analysis, see the
section titled, ``Legal Basis for the Rulemaking,'' on the first page
of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled, ``Minimum Training
Requirements for Entry-Level CMV Operators'' (72 FR 73226, December 26,
2007).
    On May 21, 2004, by final rule, FMCSA mandated training for all
interstate CDL operators in four subject areas, effective July 20, 2004
(69 FR 29384). In 2005, the final rule was challenged in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. While the court ordered a remand so
the Agency could review the matter, the court did not vacate the rule.
Consequently, the 2004 final rule is currently in effect (Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
429 F. 3d 1136 (D.C.Cir. 2005).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection request, including: (1) Whether the
proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance of
functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the
FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information.

    Issued on: August 18, 2009.
David Anewalt,
Acting Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-20391 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P