[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37947-37948]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15377]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67212; File No. SR-ISE-2012-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend a Fee Discount Pilot Program for Large-Sized Foreign
Currency Options

June 19, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 12, 2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to extend for an additional year the fee
discount for large-sized foreign currency (``FX'') option orders. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend for an
additional year the fee discount for large-sized FX option orders. The
Exchange initially adopted the fee discount for large-sized FX option
orders in 2008.\3\ The fee discount pilot program was subsequently
extended \4\ and is now set

to expire on June 30, 2012.\5\ The fee discount applies to orders of
250 contracts or more and waives fees on incremental volume above 250
contracts. Contracts at or under the threshold are charged the
constituent's prescribed execution fee. The fee discount applies to all
Customer \6\ orders, Firm Proprietary orders, Market Maker orders and
Non-ISE Market Maker orders in FX options traded on the Exchange. ISE
adopted this fee discount to encourage members to execute large-sized
FX option orders on the Exchange in a manner that is cost effective.
The Exchange now proposes to extend this fee discount through June 30,
2013 in a continuing effort to attract more activity in large-sized FX
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58139 (July 10,
2008), 73 FR 41142 (July 17, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-54).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60192 (June 30,
2009), 74 FR 32211 (July 7, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-42); and 62506 (July
15, 2010), 75 FR 42801 (July 22, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-67).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64743 (July 24,
2011), 76 FR 38434 (June 30, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-35).
    \6\ The fee discount applies to both Professional and Priority
Customer orders. A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule
100(a)(37A) as a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). A Professional Customer is a person who is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
reasonable and equitable as it would extend a current fee discount,
thus effectively maintaining low fees for all market participants that
trade in large-sized FX options on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-ISE-2012-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-55. 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 Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-55 and should be
submitted by July 16, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15377 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 34882]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11537]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4704-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4704-DR), dated April 15, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 24, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program for those areas determined to have been
adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of April 15, 2023.

    All areas within the State of Indiana are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11537 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50706-50708]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1016]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay, San Diego,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is expanding a naval security zone. The
expanded zone will encompass a nearby, separate security zone in its
entirety. The subsumed security zone will be removed from the
regulations. This action also includes the installation of water
barriers within the expanded security zone. These water borne barriers
will provide a line of demarcation and a defensive measure as a
safeguard from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. No
persons or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone without
permission of the Captain of the Port, the Commander of Naval Base
Point Loma, the Commander of Naval Region Southwest, or a designated
representative of those individuals.

DATES: This rule is effective November 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-1016 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-1016 in the ``keyword''
box, and then clicking ``search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Mike Dolan, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On February 11, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay,
San Diego, CA in the Federal Register (74 FR 6842). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. There were no requests for a public
meeting, therefore no meeting was held.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Navy requested an expansion of an existing security zone.
The new zone will allow for installation of water barriers to provide a
line of demarcation and defensive measures as

a safeguard from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature. The
expanded security zone will entirely subsume a nearby existing security
zone, which will be removed.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    It was determined that Point B (32[deg]42.48[min] N,
117[deg]14.17[min] W) and Point C (32[deg]42.17[min] N,
117[deg]14.00[min] W) were plotted in the channel to the south entrance
of Shelter Island. These points were brought out of the channel and the
new coordinates are 32[deg]42.48[min] N, 117[deg]14.22[min] W (Point B)
and 32[deg]42.17[min] N, 117[deg]14.05[min] W (Point C).
    Point H (32[deg]41.04[min] N, 117[deg]14.14[min] W) was relocated
to 32[deg]41.17[min] N, 117[deg]13.97[min] W. The original point caused
the security zone to run along the shoreline and was deemed
unnecessary.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the
security zone. Vessels do not routinely operate for commercial purposes
within the area encompassed by the security zone expansion, which is
currently within a charted restricted area (33 CFR 334.870).
Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the
established security zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the San Diego Bay.
    This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic can pass
safely around the security zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of

Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves changing and
disestablishing a security zone. An environmental analysis checklist
and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.1102 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1102  Security Zone; Naval Base Point Loma; San Diego Bay,
San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: The water
adjacent to the Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA, enclosed by the
following coordinates:

32[deg]42.48' N, 117[deg]14.22[min] W (Point A);
32[deg]42.48' N, 117[deg]14.21[min] W (Point B);
32[deg]42.17' N, 117[deg]14.05[min] W (Point C);
32[deg]41.73' N, 117[deg]14.21[min] W (Point D);
32[deg]41.53' N, 117[deg]14.23[min] W (Point E);
32[deg]41.55' N, 117[deg]14.02[min] W (Point F);
32[deg]41.17' N, 117[deg]13.95[min] W (Point G);
32[deg]41.17' N, 117[deg]13.97[min] W (Point H);
thence running generally north along the shoreline to Point A.

    (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing security
zones found in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the security zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) Entry into, or remaining in, the area of this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego;
Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma; or Commander, Navy Region
Southwest.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may
request permission from the Captain of the Port San Diego at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or from either
the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma or the Commander, Navy
Region Southwest by calling the Navy Port Operation Dispatch at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channels 16 or 12. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port San Diego or his or her
designated representative.
    (c) Definitions. For purposes of this section: Captain of the Port
San Diego, means the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard Sector San
Diego; Commander, Navy Region Southwest, means Navy Region Commander
responsible for the Southwest Region; Commanding Officer, Naval Base
Point Loma, means the Installation Commander of the naval base located
on Point Loma, San Diego, California; Designated Representative, means
any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been designated by the Captain of the Port San Diego to assist in the
enforcement of the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section by the U.S. Navy and local law enforcement agencies.

0
3. Remove Sec.  165.1103.

    Dated: May 1, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-23642 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9734-9735]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05034]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775; FRL-9991-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU34

Public Hearing for Modifications To Fuel Regulations To Provide
Flexibility for E15; Modifications to RFS RIN Market Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a public hearing to be held in
Ypsilanti, MI on March 29, 2019 for the proposed rule ``Modifications
to Fuel Regulations to Provide Flexibility for E15; Modifications to
RFS RIN Market Regulations.'' This proposed rule will be published
separately in the Federal Register. The pre-publication version of this
proposal can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/notice-proposed-rulemaking-modifications-fuel-regulations-provide. In the separate notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA has
proposed regulatory changes to allow gasoline blended with up to 15
percent ethanol to take advantage of the 1-psi Reid Vapor Pressure
waiver that currently applies to E10 during the summer months. EPA is
also proposing an interpretive rulemaking which defines gasoline
blended with up to 15 percent ethanol as ``substantially similar'' to
the fuel used to certify Tier 3 motor vehicles. Finally, EPA is
proposing regulatory changes to modify certain elements of the
Renewable Fuel Standard compliance system, in order to improve
renewable identification number market functioning and prevent market
manipulation.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on March 29, 2019 at the
location noted below under ADDRESSES. The hearing will begin at 9:00
a.m. and end when all parties present who wish to speak have had an
opportunity to do so. Parties wishing to testify at the hearing should
notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by March 26, 2019. Additional information regarding the hearing appears
below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the following location: Ann
Arbor Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest, 1275 S Huron St., Ypsilanti,
MI 48197 (phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>). A complete set of documents
related to the proposal

will be available for public inspection through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775.
Documents can also be viewed at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which EPA is holding the
public hearing will be published separately in the Federal Register.
The pre-publication version can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/notice-proposed-rulemaking-modifications-fuel-regulations-provide.
    Public Hearing: The public hearing will provide interested parties
the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposal (which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/notice-proposed-rulemaking-modifications-fuel-regulations-provide). The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the
oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that
time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during
the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral
comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment
period, as specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule, and other
related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0775. The EPA has also developed a website at the
address given above. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking
for detailed information on accessing information related to the
proposal.

    Dated: March 12, 2019.
William Wehrum,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2019-05034 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OEI/ OIC/ IESD/ IEPB 2. X OMB control number b.

None a__ 2025  0006 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d.

Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e.

Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f.

Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b.

Emergency  Approval requested by: c.

Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

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. Other Specify:

7. Title Exchange Network Grants Survey ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR# 2207.02 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Grant programs, Computer technology, State and local governments, Administrative practice and procedure 10. Abstract The information is collected from recipients of EPA Exchange Network grants as well as customers of the Exchange Network and is used to make awards, collect information on how Federal funds are being spent, and assess the effectiveness of this spending. EPA needs this information to meet its Federal stewardship responsibilities.

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. 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. X Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents ____ 225_________ b. Total annual responses ________ 675_________ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 80 % c. Total hours requested _______ 900_________ d. Current OMB inventory ________ 0___________ e. Difference ___________ 675_______ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change __________ 675_______ 2. Adjustment ___________ 0________ 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. P_ Application for benefits e. _ X_ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b.

Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1.

On occasion 2.

Weekly 3.

Monthly 4.

Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6.

Annually 7.

Biennially 8.

Other ( describe)

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

Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jeffrey Wells______________________________ Phone: 202 566 1706_______________________________

OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44174-44178]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95321; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Rules Regarding Complex Orders

July 19, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 July 14, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a 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 EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Rules regarding complex orders. 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/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), 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, the definition of complex order in Rule 21.20(a)
provides that the term ``complex order'' means any order involving the
concurrent purchase and/or sale of two or more different series in the
same class (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex order), for
the same account, in a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the
purposes of executing a particular investment strategy. As such, only
complex orders with a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) may currently be
submitted for trading on the Exchange. The proposed rule change amends
the definition of complex order in Rule 21.20(a) to provide that a
``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent purchase and/or
sale of two or more different series in the same class (the ``legs'' or
``components'' of the complex order), for the same account, in any
ratio and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. The Exchange notes that its affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Options, recently amended its complex order rules in the same manner as
proposed herein to permit complex orders with ratios less than one-to-
three and greater than three-to-one to be eligible for electronic
processing.\3\ The Exchange proposes to accept complex orders with
ratios larger than three-to-one or smaller than one-to-three for
execution in order to provide execution opportunities for all complex
orders, including those with investment strategies that do not fit
within the three-to-one ratio requirement (which opportunities are
afforded to those complex orders submitted to Cboe Options today).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). The Cboe
Options' filing SR-CBOE-2021-046 also amended Cboe Option's complex
order rules to allow the minimum increment for bids and offers on
complex orders with any ratio to be in $0.01 or greater (legs were
already permitted to be executed in pennies on Cboe Options). The
Exchange notes that Rule 21.20(f)(1) currently provides that the
minimum increment for bids and offers on a complex order is $0.01,
and the components of a complex order may be executed in $0.01
increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise
applicable to the individual components of the complex order. As a
result, all complex orders (including those with larger ratios as
proposed in this filing) and their legs will be able to execute in
pennies, and all bids and offers on all complex orders (including
those with larger ratios, as proposed) will be able to be expressed
in a minimum increment of $0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change will allow complex orders of any
ratio to be traded on the Exchange, the Exchange does not propose to
extend the complex order priority in Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A) afforded to
complex orders with ratios equal to or greater than one-to-three and
less than or equal to three-to-one to complex orders with larger
ratios. Instead, the proposed rule change amends Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A) to
provide that, if a complex order has a ratio less than one-to-three
(.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00), the component(s) of the
complex order for the leg(s) with a Priority Customer order at the Best
Bid or Offer (``BBO'') must execute at a price that improves the price
of that Priority Customer order(s) on the Simple Book (the Exchange
notes that this proposed rule change is described below in further
detail). The proposed rule change also makes certain nonsubstantive
changes to the complex priority rule. The Exchange notes that execution
of complex orders with any ratio will continue to be required [sic] at
net prices: (i) that would cause any component of the complex strategy
to be executed at a price of zero; (ii) worse than the Synthetic Best
Bid or Offer (``SBBO'') or equal to the SBBO when there is a Priority
Customer order at the SBBO (except all-or-none (``AON''); (iii) that
would cause any component of the complex strategy to be executed at a

price worse than the individual component prices on the Simple Book; or
(iv) worse than the price that would be available if the complex order
legged into the Simple Book.
    Specifically, regarding the nonsubstantive changes to Rule
21.20(f)(2)(A), the proposed rule change combines subparagraph (ii)
with (v) (and renumbers the subparagraphs), as the provisions
ultimately mean the same thing. Specifically, Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A)(ii)
provides that the System does not execute a complex order pursuant to
Rule 21.20 at a net price worse than the SBBO or equal to the SBBO when
there is a Priority Customer order at the SBBO, except all-or-none
(``AON'') complex orders may only execute at prices better than the
SBBO. Therefore, if there is a Priority Customer Order comprising part
of the SBBO, a complex order could only execute by improving the SBBO,
which would require improvement of component prices. This is what
current Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A)(v) requires. Specifically, that provision
states that the System does not execute a complex order pursuant to
Rule 21.20 at a net price that would cause any component of the complex
strategy to be executed at a price ahead of a Priority Customer Order
on the Simple Book without improving the BBO of at least one component
of the complex strategy. Because these two provisions are interrelated,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to combine them into proposed
Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A)(iv).\4\ The proposed rule change amends language in
proposed Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A)(iv) to provide that the System does not
execute a complex order at a net price worse than the SBBO or equal to
the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer order on any leg comprising
the SBBO and adds subparagraph (a) to additionally provide that if a
complex order has a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333)
and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00), at least one component
of the complex order must execute at a price that improves the BBO for
that component, which is consistent with current functionality for
complex orders in ratios that may currently be submitted on the
Exchange. The proposed nonsubstantive rule changes to restructure Rule
21.20(f)(2)(A) have no impact on complex order priority and are
consistent with and align the Exchange's complex order priority rule
with Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2), which governs Cboe Options complex
order priority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed rule change makes other nonsubstantive changes
to the sentence structure as a result of the combination of
provisions, as well as other nonsubstantive changes to the
formatting and paragraph structure for added clarity and consistency
with the structure of corresponding Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2).
    \5\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A); and see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 95006 (May 31, 2022), 87 FR 34334 (June 6,
2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the proposed rule change to incorporate complex orders
with larger-ratios, as proposed, into the complex order priority
provision, the proposed rule change adds subparagraph (b) to Rule
21.20(f)(2)(A)(iv), as proposed. As described above, Rule
21.20(f)(2)(A)(iv), as proposed, provides that the System does not
execute a complex order at a net price worse than the SBBO or equal to
the SBBO when there is a Priority Customer order on any leg comprising
the SBBO, and, as proposed subparagraph (b) provides, if the complex
order has a ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-
to-one (3.00), the component(s) of the complex order for the leg(s)
with a Priority Customer order at the BBO must execute at a price that
improves the price of that Priority Customer order(s) on the Simple
Book. As a result, to the extent a complex order with a ratio of four-
to-one (for example) is submitted for electronic execution, the complex
order may be executed at a net debit or credit price only if each leg
of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) of a priority
customer order(s) in the Simple Book. Therefore, the complex order
priority rules will continue to protect Priority Customer interest on
the Simple Book. The proposed rule change regarding complex order
priority for complex order ratios less than one-to-three (.333) or
greater than three-to-one (3.00) is consistent with the corresponding
complex priority rule on Cboe Options \6\ as it applies to complex
order ratios less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one
(3.00) electronically submitted to Cboe Options, as previously approved
by the Commission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046). SR-CBOE-
2021-046 did not make any changes to complex orders with ratios
equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00) available on Cboe Options and Cboe Options
continues to allow trading in such complex orders with smaller
ratios today. Likewise, the Exchange notes that this proposal does
not make any changes to currently permissible complex order ratios
(equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00)) and such complex orders with smaller ratios
will continue to be available for trading on the Exchange,
consistent with Cboe Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change next corrects an error in the introductory
paragraph of Rule 21.20(b) and the definition of COA-eligible and Do-
Not-COA orders in Rule 21.20(b). Regarding the introductory paragraph
to Rule 21.20(b), there is a stray clause (including a bracket) that
was inadvertently left in this provision upon a previous rule change to
harmonize the Exchange's complex order rule with the complex order
rules of its affiliated options exchanges, Cboe C2 Exchange Inc.
(``C2'') and Cboe Options.\8\ Therefore, the proposed rule change
removes the stray clause and corrects language within the provision to
be consistent with corresponding C2 Rule 5.33(b) and Cboe Options Rule
5.33(b), as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 86353 (July 11,
2019), 84 FR 34230 (July 7, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-039); and 87015
(September 19, 2019), 84 FR 50504 (September 25, 2019) (SR-CBOE-
2019-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the definition of COA-eligible and Do-Not-COA orders in
Rule 21.20(b), the Exchange's System currently determines whether an
order is ``COA-eligible'' by comparing the price of an order to resting
interest on the same side as the order in the Simple Book and in the
Complex Order Book (``COB''). However, the current definition
inadvertently inversed the relevant terms and compares the price of a
buy complex order to the synthetic best offer (``SBO'') and sell
complex orders and compares the price of a sell complex order to the
synthetic best bid (``SBB'') and buy complex orders, which would be
opposite-side interest. The proposed rule change corrects this error
and revises the definition to provide that whether a complex order is
COA-eligible will be determined by comparing the order's price to same-
side interest, which is consistent with current System functionality.
Specifically, a ``COA-eligible'' complex order is a buy (sell) complex
order with User instructions to (or which default to) initiate a COA
that is priced (A) equal to or higher (lower) than the SBB (SBO)
(provided that if any of the bids or offers on the Simple Book that
comprise the SBB (SBO) is represented by a Priority Customer order, the
complex order must be priced at least $0.01 higher (lower) than the SBB
(SBO) and (B) higher (lower) than the price of buy (sell) complex
orders resting at the top of the COB. This is consistent with the
provisions that will cause a COA to terminate early, pursuant to which
a COA will end early because of incoming same-side interest.\9\
Additionally, the

proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange's affiliated
options exchanges', Cboe Options and C2, definitions of ``COA-
eligible'' order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, Rule 21.20(d)(3) provides that the COA
response time interval terminates early (A) when the System receives
a non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA-eligible order
that initiated the COA but with a price better than the COA price,
in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-
eligible order pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(5) and posts the new order
to the COB; (B) when the System receives an order in a leg of the
complex order that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the
COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a price equal to or
better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates the
COA and processes the COA-eligible order pursuant to Rule
21.20(d)(5), posts the new order to the Simple Book, and updates the
SBBO; or (C) if the System receives a Priority Customer Order that
would join or improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA in
progress to a price equal to or better than the COA price, in which
case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible
order pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(5), posts the new order to the
Simple Book, and updates the SBBO.
    \10\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(b)(5), and C2 Rule 5.33(b)(2);
and see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95006 (May 31, 2022), 87
FR 34334 (June 6, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2022-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change updates Rule 21.20(g) to reflect
that the System accepts for electronic processing complex orders with
more than four legs. Current Rule 21.20(g) states that a complex order
may execute against orders and quotes resting in the Simple Book
pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(5)(A) and (e) if it can execute in full or in
a permissible ratio and if it has no more than a maximum number of legs
(which the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis and may be
two, three or four) subject to certain restrictions, including that
non-Customer complex orders with two option legs that are both buy or
both sell and that are both calls or both puts may not leg into the
Simple Book and all complex orders with three or four option legs that
are all buy or all sell may not leg into the Simple Book. The proposed
rule change modifies the parenthetical regarding legging restrictions
to indicate that the maximum number the Exchange may determine on a
class-by-class basis may be up to 16, as the Exchange's System
currently accepts complex orders with up to that many legs for
electronic processing.\11\ The proposed rule change makes no changes to
which or how complex orders may leg into the Simple Book but rather
updates this provision to reflect current functionality. This proposed
rule change, too, is consistent with the corresponding Cboe Options
rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe Notice C2021060800, Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg
Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders (June 8, 2021), available at
Cboe Options Introduces 16-Leg Maximum for Non-FLEX Complex Orders;
see also Cboe US Options Complex Book Process (technical
specifications last updated June 3, 2022), Section 2.3.2, available
at US Options Complex Book Process.
    \12\ See Cboe Options Rule 5.33(g); and see Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 95006 (May 31, 2022), 87 FR 34334 (June 6, 2022)
(SR-CBOE-2022-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ 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) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and benefit investors, because it will provide market
participants with execution opportunities on the Exchange for all their
complex trading and hedging strategies, regardless of ratio. Market
participants may determine that investment and hedging strategies with
ratios greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three are
appropriate for their investment purposes, and the Exchange believes it
will benefit market participants if they have the flexibility to submit
their investment and hedging strategies on the Exchange to achieve
their desired investment results. The proposed rule change will further
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, as it will allow complex orders to
be submitted on the Exchange in the same manner as complex orders may
already be submitted on its affiliated options exchange, Cboe
Options,\16\ which currently permits orders of any ratio to be
submitted to the exchange, as previously approved by the
Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that its affiliated options exchange,
C2, also intends to file a similar rule filing to allow complex
orders of any ratio to be submitted on C2.
    \17\ See supra note 9. Prior to the Commission's approval of SR-
CBOE-2022-046, larger ratio complex orders were already permitted to
be submitted to Cboe Options' trading floor for execution in open
outcry. The Commission's approval of SR-CBOE-2022-046 allowed larger
ratio complex orders to be submitted for electronic trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change will continue to protect
priority customer order interest on the Simple Book, as all complex
orders with a ratio greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three
will be executed only if each leg of the order improves the price of a
priority customer order on the Simple Book on each leg. Again, as noted
above, the proposed rule change regarding complex order priority for
complex order ratios less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than
three-to-one (3.00) is consistent with the corresponding complex
priority rule on Cboe Options as it applies to larger ratio orders
submitted for electronic trading on Cboe Options.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed nonsubstantive rule changes make no changes to how
complex orders are processed or executed, but rather update the Rules
to reflect more accurately current System functionality and to make
clarifying and simplifying changes, which the Exchange believes will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest. The proposed change to the introductory
paragraph to Rule 21.20(b) removes a stray clause, inadvertently left
in the rules, and replaces it with language that is consistent with
corresponding C2 and Cboe Options rules, as intended.\19\ The proposed
amendments to the definition of COA-eligible order in Rule 21.20(b)
corrects an inadvertent error in the definition. Specifically, the
System compares the price of the order to same-side interest rather
than opposite-side interest but the current language inadvertently
inverts the terms. As such, the proposed rule change corrects this
inadvertent error, and thus provides additional transparency in the
Rules, ultimately benefiting investors. This is consistent with the
provisions that will cause a COA to terminate early, pursuant to

which a COA will end early because of incoming same-side interest.\20\
Additionally, the proposed rule change is consistent with Cboe Option's
definition of ``COA-eligible'' order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 10.
    \20\ Specifically, Rule 21.20(d)(3) provides that the COA
response time interval terminates early (A) when the System receives
a non-COA-eligible order on the same side as the COA-eligible order
that initiated the COA but with a price better than the COA price,
in which case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-
eligible order pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(5) and posts the new order
to the COB; (B) when the System receives an order in a leg of the
complex order that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the
COA-eligible order that initiated the COA to a price equal to or
better than the COA price, in which case the System terminates the
COA and processes the COA-eligible order pursuant to Rule
21.20(d)(5), posts the new order to the Simple Book, and updates the
SBBO; or (C) if the System receives a Priority Customer Order that
would join or improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA in
progress to a price equal to or better than the COA price, in which
case the System terminates the COA and processes the COA-eligible
order pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(5), posts the new order to the
Simple Book, and updates the SBBO.
    \21\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other nonsubstantive proposed rule change to the provisions
regarding complex order priority in Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A) is intended to
simplify the rule text regarding when legs of complex orders must
improve prices of orders on the Simple Book, while adding clarity to
the rule text through an update in its formatting and aligning such
provision with Cboe Option's corresponding complex priority rule. This
proposed rule change has no impact on electronic complex order priority
while still increasing investor understanding.
    Finally, the proposed rule change to the provision regarding
complex order legging in Rule 21.20(g) will protect investors, as it
merely updates the provision to reflect that the System accepts for
electronic processing complex orders with more than four legs. The
proposed rule change makes no changes to which or how complex orders
may leg into the Simple Book but rather updates this provision to
reflect current functionality and align with Cboe Options corresponding
rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the proposed rule change to allow for complex orders in any
ratio to be submitted to the Exchange will impose any burden on
intramarket competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the
same manner to all Options Members. Options Members will have the
discretion to submit complex orders with any ratio for trading on the
Exchange. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition as it relates to the
execution of orders on the Exchange and will continue to protect
Priority Customer Orders on the Simple Book. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change may promote competition, as market participants
will have additional flexibility to execute their trading and hedging
strategies in any ratio, and in the same manner that is already
permitted on the Exchange's affiliated options exchange, Cboe Options.
Also, other options exchanges are welcome to modify their systems to
permit higher/lower ratio orders to execute electronically or on their
trading floors.
    The proposed nonsubstantive rule changes are not intended for
competitive purposes, but rather to clarify certain provisions and
correct certain language. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed nonsubstantive rule changes will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because all changes will apply
in the same manner to all investors. The proposed nonsubstantive rule
changes have no impact on trading and thus will not change how any
investors' complex orders are processed or executed on the Exchange. As
noted above, the proposed rule change makes no changes to electronic
complex order priority, which orders can initiate a COA, or how complex
orders may leg into the Simple Book. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed nonsubstantive rule changes will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule
changes have no impact on how complex orders trade, as they make
primarily clarifying updates, corrections, and other nonsubstantive
changes.

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 \23\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\26\ the Commission
may 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. The Exchange notes
that complex orders with any ratio currently are eligible for
electronic processing on Cboe Options, and that the proposal does not
introduce any new or novel functionality.\27\ The Exchange states that
waiver of the operative delay will benefit investors by providing them
with the flexibility to submit bona-fide multi-legged trading or
hedging strategies in any ratio to the Exchange. In addition, the
Exchange states that the proposed non-substantive rule changes clarify
certain provisions and correct certain language, and that waiver of the
operative delay with respect to these changes will protect investors
and the public interest by providing investors with additional
transparency regarding the Exchange's rules as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the proposal will benefit investors by
providing investors with an additional venue for trading complex orders
with any ratio, including complex orders with a ratio less than one-to-
three or greater than three-to-one. As discussed above, the

Commission approved a Cboe Options proposal allowing complex orders
with any ratio to trade electronically and to be quoted, as well as
executed, in $0.01 increments.\28\ The Commission notes that the
priority provisions in proposed Exchange Rule 21.20(f)(2)(A)(iv)(b) for
complex orders with a ratio less than one-to-three or greater than
three-to-one--which require each component leg of such an order with a
Priority Customer order at the BBO to execute at a price that improves
the price of the Priority Customer order(s) on the Simple Book--is
consistent with Cboe Options Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(iv)(b). Accordingly,
the Exchange's proposal to allow market participants to submit complex
orders with any ratio to the Exchange does not raise new or novel
regulatory issues. The Commission believes that the proposed non-
substantive changes to Exchange Rules 21.20(b), 21.20(f)(2)(A), and
21.20(g) will clarify and help to ensure the accuracy of the Exchange's
rules by correcting, updating, and streamlining the Exchange's rules.
The Commission notes that these proposed changes are consistent with
the rules of Cboe Options.\29\ Accordingly, the Commission waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 3.
    \29\ See Cboe Options Rules 5.33(b), 5.33(f)(2)(A), and 5.33(g).
    \30\ 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-033 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-CboeEDGX-2022-033. 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-CboeEDGX-2022-033, and should be
submitted on or before August 15, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pant
to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15773 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32840-32841]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-468-000]

Discovery Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

June 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2007, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC
(Discovery) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective
date of July 1, 2007:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 33.
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 44.
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 53.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11450 Filed 6-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 OAR 2005 MD 0015; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Revised Definition of Interruptible Gas Service AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan ( SIP) revision submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment. This revision amends the regulation pertaining to the control of fuel burning equipment, stationary internal combustion engines, and certain fuel burning installations. The revision clarifies the definition of " interruptible gas service". This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act ( CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [ insert date 30 days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA R03 OAR 2005

MD 0015 by one of the following methods:

A. www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E mail: morris. makeba@ epa. gov C. Mail: EPA R03 OAR 2005 MD 0015, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are 2 only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA R03 OAR 2005 MD 0015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www. regulations. gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www. regulations. gov or e mail. The EPA www. regulations. gov website is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through www. regulations. gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption,

and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., CBI or other 3 information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helene Drago, ( 215) 814 5796, or by e mail at drago. helene@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 31, 2005, the Maryland Department of the Environment submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan ( SIP). The revision clarifies the definition of " interruptible gas service". The revision consists of amendments to Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines and Certain Fuel Burning Installations.

I. Background The Maryland Department of the Environment developed as one of its control strategies for particulate matter, a requirement to install a mechanical dust collector on fuel burning equipment burning residual fuel oil. This requirement applied in the Baltimore/ Washington areas.

When the dust collector requirement was developed, it was the normal practice for gas suppliers 4 to interrupt gas service for several days up to two weeks when gas supply was low. Gas customers that had dual firing capability had no choice but to burn oil during the interruptible period. At that time a question arose as to the applicability of the dust collector requirement for those sources that burn residual oil when the gas service was interrupted. In response to that question, the term " interruptible gas service" was defined. The regulation provided an exemption from the dust collector requirement for sources that burned residual oil during the interruptible period. The current definition, however, does not clearly state that the exemption applies only when there is a shortage of natural gas.

II. Summary of SIP Revision On October 31, 2005, the State submitted a SIP revision request which concerned clarification of the definition of " interruptible gas service". This SIP revision includes amendments to Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel Burning Installations. Documentation of public participation was included in the submittal.

The amendment clarifies the definition of the term " interruptible gas service". The revision clarifies that the gas supplier ( utility) makes the decision to interrupt the gas service based on the availability of gas and not on the cost of fuel or other parameter. A user is not involved with the decision to interrupt gas service except when the user is notified that the service will be interrupted. 5 III. Proposed Action EPA's review of this material indicates the revision will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve the State of Maryland SIP revision concerning the clarification of the definition of " interruptible gas service", which was submitted on October 31,

2005. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed.

Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 6 Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,

when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 ( 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 ( 53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the " Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order. 7 This proposed rule to approve revisions that clarify the definition of " interruptible gas service"

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

/ s/ ___________________________ ____________________________ Dated: December 30, 2005 Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III.