1 February 2005 Framework for Implementation of the Federal Air Rules for Reservations ( FARR)

I. Introduction This implementation framework describes the high level overview of EPA's plan for implementation of the Federal Air Rules for Reservations ( FARR). It is intended to give the reader a general sense of EPA's approach to the implementation of each section of the FARR; the alignment of resources with implementation needs; and the ways in which EPA will involve tribes in FARR implementation.

Although this framework is only an overview, a team of EPA Region 10 staff is developing a comprehensive FARR implementation strategy and detailed implementation plans for each element of the FARR. We anticipate that the level of effort needed to fully develop our implementation activities will be highly variable, depending on which element is being addressed. In the areas of permitting, compliance monitoring, complaint response, and enforcement, EPA Region 10 has mature programs that already operate in Indian Country. Further refining these programs to include full implementation of the FARR should be relatively straightforward. For elements such as a source registration system, a burn permit program, or monitoring air pollution episodes, much more work will be needed to develop the programs and integrate them into EPA's ongoing work.

Resource evaluation is a key part of implementation planning. Region 10' s implementation strategy will encompass all the work that must be undertaken to implement the FARR rules and will consider a full range of implementation scenarios based on differing assumptions about EPA and tribal resources. Over the near term, EPA Region 10 does not anticipate adding significant new resources, either for EPA or for the tribes, to conduct the work of FARR implementation. Small additions or shifts to EPA staffing and extramural funding are possible. Shifting of resources within EPA Region 10 will take place as we prioritize work in the air program. This will result in some limited additional resources being dedicated to FARR implementation. The phasing in of different elements of the FARR will help EPA spread out the implementation work and evaluate placement of our resources for implementation.

Implementation of the FARR will require EPA Region 10 to take on a new role with respect to the Clean Air Act. The Region will be responsible for direct implementation of a comprehensive air quality management program, essentially functioning as a local air agency: one whose jurisdiction encompasses 39 separate geographic areas in three states. While EPA will have the role of a local air agency, we intend to implement, in a consistent manner, the set of federal rules that apply on all 39 reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Local approaches to specific local situations will come about when tribes are able to adopt and implement their own air quality programs. 2 EPA staff in various organizational units will be engaged in implementation of the FARR. The lead responsibility will be housed in the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance will attend to the compliance assurance and enforcement of the rules. Additional support will come from the Office of Environmental Assessment, the Tribal Office, and the Operations Offices in Boise, Portland, and Olympia.

II. Outreach for FARR Promulgation and Implementation An important aspect of implementation of the FARR will be outreach to the affected communities. EPA Region 10 is developing a comprehensive outreach strategy which includes plans for the tasks and expenses required to adequately educate people and sources affected by the FARR. " Outreach" is defined as providing information appropriate to each sector ( citizens, tribal leaders and air staff, source owners and operators) so that they understand what the rules require. The outreach strategy will also address timing for delivery and the resources available to provide adequate outreach. EPA intends to involve tribal and non tribal stakeholders in the development of outreach plans so the materials created will be effective and culturally sensitive.

III. Overviews of Implementation Planning for Each Element of the FARR A. Compliance Assurance The compliance assurance program broadly includes compliance assistance, compliance incentives, compliance monitoring and enforcement response. The FARR compliance assurance program will include all four elements. Compliance assistance is closely linked to the overall outreach effort to inform the regulated community of the new rules and provide information about compliance obligations. Compliance monitoring activity includes a range of activities to investigate and determine compliance, for example, on site inspections or observations, review of certifications and emissions monitoring results, review of other information about, or from, regulated sources. Compliance incentives will be guided by EPA's Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. Enforcement response to violations will take a variety of forms depending on the nature of the compliance issue and the relative priority for EPA response. ( see B. Enforcement, below)

The initial focus of EPA's compliance assurance work, including compliance monitoring and enforcement follow up, will be on the regulated industrial sources. Priority will be given to those facilities that meet the definition of major facility and selected non major stationary sources of interest to EPA. For this group of facilities, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy, Response to High Priority Violations, CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy, and the Agency's Procedures for Enforcement in Indian Country will generally direct our work. 3 In order to implement the compliance assurance program, Region 10 will use staff from several offices and programs including air staff located in Seattle and Olympia, Washington, Boise, Idaho and Portland, Oregon. The Region will explore options for securing the services of a " circuit rider" who would assist EPA in the field by making regular visits to reservations. EPA will look for opportunities to promote tribal participation through formal agreements, such as delegations or Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements ( DITCAs), and through work sharing and collaboration where not formally delegated.

Effective compliance assurance for the FARR will include response to complaints. EPA is responsible for responding to air quality complaints received from members of the general public, companies, agencies, and tribal representatives. Region 10 will adapt its existing complaint response program to the FARR as the rules become effective. EPA's level of response to complaints will depend on the nature of the complaint and the level of impact. For complaints regarding an imminent or substantial endangerment to health or the environment, EPA will notify the appropriate authorities in or near the effected area to respond immediately, and will take other actions as needed to protect public health and welfare. For complaints not in need of an immediate response, EPA will formulate its response based on factors such as whether the complaint is about emissions from an industrial facility or from a private residence, the type and amount of emissions generating the complaint, possible impacts to nearby population or environment, and the frequency of the complaints against a specific source. EPA will work with the tribe and any other appropriate agency to respond to, and resolve, the complaint.

B. Enforcement When violations are reported to EPA, or discovered by EPA or the Tribe as a result of inspections or other reviews, EPA intends to take prompt enforcement action consistent with EPA policy and guidance, and in accordance with the Region 10 Enforcement Procedures in Indian Country. The Clean Air Act provides EPA with broad discretionary authority in this regard. Under section 113 of the Act, EPA is authorized to bring enforcement actions against facilities for violations of the FARR ( i. e., FIP). This authority includes civil and administrative penalty authority, the authority to seek injunctive relief, and the authority to pursue criminal actions. Under section 113 of the Act, EPA has the authority to collect up to $ 32,500 per day for each violation of each FIP requirement. Additional authority also exists in other parts of the Act, including EPA's emergency authority under section 303 and penalty authority under section 120. EPA rules under the Act, such as this FARR, do not typically include separate or special enforcement provisions, but instead rely on the authority under sections 113, 120, 303 and other EPA statutes. Thus, the FARR does not rely on any single enforcement tool.

EPA will address noncompliance with the various general rules in the FARR ( e. g., general provisions, open burning, registration) by an enforcement response appropriate to the specific situation. Generally, the sources responsible may not be major or synthetic minor sources and would not be subject to EPA's High Priority Violation ( HPV) Policy for determining an 4 appropriate enforcement response. For non HPV violations, for example, one tool EPA may use is a Notice of Violation to document the violation and request the facility to submit corrective actions they will take to return to compliance and to ensure continued compliance. Region 10 may develop an enforcement response policy that will apply specifically to violations at these minor sources. For violations at major sources and certain synthetic minor sources, EPA will make a determination as to whether the violation meets the criteria of a HPV and apply EPA's HPV Policy and Region 10 Enforcement Procedures in Indian Country. This may apply, for example, to violations of the rules limiting visible emissions, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and sulfur in fuels.

Implementation of the open burning rule as it relates to residential activities will pose unique challenges. EPA recognizes a difference in strategies is needed for residential and industrial sources. For enforcement of the residential open burning rule, at least during the initial phase of implementation, emphasis will be on education and compliance assistance. The Region 10 air program anticipates working with the solid waste program and tribes to design and implement effective outreach and education, design and implement complaint tracking and response programs, and work to address alternatives to burning. EPA will also enlist assistance, where available, from local fire protection districts in responding to open burning complaints.

C. Emissions Detrimental to Public Health or Welfare The rule for emissions detrimental to public health or welfare will apply on all reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Implementation of this rule initially involves responding to complaints or air quality situations that are brought to EPA's attention. If EPA determines that there is a potential air quality problem that is not adequately addressed by existing EPA or tribal requirements, it may choose to undertake an investigation to determine whether or not emissions: ( 1) are causing or contributing to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard; or ( 2) are presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.

In any investigation under § 49.135, EPA would work closely with the affected parties, the owner or operator of the source, and the tribe. If the Regional Administrator then determines that emissions from a source are causing such an impact, the Regional Administrator may require the installation of controls or require reasonable precautions to prevent or reduce emissions. The final Agency action under § 49.135 will be a permit to construct or a permit to operate, which will go through the public involvement process specified in the applicable permit rule. Additionally, the resulting permit will be subject to both administrative and judicial appeal. The air pollution source would be required to comply with the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Regional Administrator.

The standard of " is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment" tracks the statutory language in section 303 of the Act, for which 5 EPA has issued guidance. See " Guidance on Section 303 of the Clean Air Act," April 1999. As stated in the rule, nothing in § 49.135 affects the ability of the Regional Administrator to issue an order pursuant to section 303 of the Act to require an owner or operator to immediately reduce or cease the emission of air pollutants. Section 49.135 gives EPA another tool for addressing emissions that are presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. In determining whether to take action under section 303 of the Act or to use the permitting process in § 49.135, EPA will balance the need for immediate response against the potential benefit of using a public process that in some instances may be better able to achieve a more long term solution to an ongoing air quality problem.

D. General Opening Burning The purpose of the open burning rule is to limit the types of materials that can be openly burned within Indian reservations to control emissions of particulate matter ( PM), toxics and other noxious fumes to the atmosphere, and ground level concentrations of particulate matter. It is EPA's goal to eliminate open burning disposal practices where alternative methods are feasible and practicable, to encourage the development of alternative disposal methods, to emphasize resource recovery, and to encourage utilization of the highest and best practicable burning methods to minimize emissions where other disposal practices are not feasible. EPA strongly supports tribes, states, and other entities in continuing efforts to reduce open burning in their jurisdictions and generally encourages alternate methods for disposing of waste. EPA is working with both states and tribes to enhance an awareness of the health concerns associated with open burning and facilitate the use of alternate disposal methods through outreach and recycling programs.

Under the open burning rule, EPA will be working with tribes to provide educational materials about the effects of residential burning on human health. We are seeking funding to provide workshops and training for tribal air and solid waste program staff. We will develop and target outreach and educational materials specific to each reservation as resources allow, but first we will develop materials which can be used across all reservations affected by the FARR. We will also seek out partners on reservations ( tribal air staff, non profits, health agencies, fire departments etc.) who are interested in working with us to accomplish our outreach goals.

The open burning rule provides EPA Region 10 the authority to ban open burning under certain conditions. The Regional Administrator may declare a burn ban whenever air pollution levels have exceeded or are expected to exceed 75% of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for particulate matter, or whenever the Regional Administrator issues an air stagnation advisory, or declares an air pollution alert, warning, or emergency. ( Section 303 of the CAA also gives the Regional Administrator the authority to ban open burning if the burning is causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.) See section E. of this document for a description of Region 10' s plan for 6 determining and communicating burn bans under both the general rule for open burning and the rule for air pollution episodes.

E. Air Pollution Episodes Implementing the Federal Air Rules for Reservations requires Region 10 to inform individuals living on reservations of poor air quality episodes and the mandatory burn bans that accompany such episodes. These episodes consist of air stagnation advisories, air pollution alerts, air pollution warnings, and air pollution emergencies. Following is the Region 10 strategy for informing the public ( tribal and non tribal members) living on reservations in Region 10 of poor air quality episodes.

The first step to implement these sections of the FARR is to review weather forecast information. The National Weather Service ( NWS) monitors current and forecast weather information and many NWS offices issue air stagnation advisories to the public. When the NWS issues an air stagnation advisory, Region 10 meteorologists will determine its applicability to reservations in Region 10.

State and local air quality agencies in Region 10 currently issue air stagnation advisories, alerts, warnings and emergencies for areas within their jurisdiction, including areas adjacent to or surrounding the reservations. Prior to implementing the FARR, Region 10 will establish a communication protocol with state and local agencies that will determine the most efficient way to coordinate EPA, state, and local air quality announcements. When a state or local air quality agency issues an air quality episode statement Region 10 will determine if the episode conditions also exist within any reservations. To determine if episode conditions exist within a certain reservation, Region 10 will take into consideration existing air quality as measured by air quality monitors which may be representative of air quality for the airshed in which the reservation is located. EPA will determine which existing monitors are representative for each reservation prior to implementation of this rule. As monitoring networks change and expand, EPA will ensure that it continues to use the monitors that best represent air quality for each reservation.

Once Region 10 determines that it is appropriate to issue a statement of a poor air quality episode on reservations, Region 10 will communicate this information to the affected public living on the reservation. The following process will be used to communicate this information to the public:   Region 10 will compile contact information on tribal agencies, newspapers, and radio and television outlets that could disseminate information about poor air quality events to the residents of reservations.   When an air quality event episode is predicted to occur, and when a burn ban is necessary, Region 10 will send announcements to these contacts electronically ( e mail or fax) or inform them by telephone. 7   Announcements and information on air quality events episodes will be posted on the Region 10 website for access by the public and the media.

Initially, EPA

s implementation of the air pollution episode rules will rely largely on air quality data being collected at existing air monitors operated by state and local air agencies. Over time, and as resources permit, an increase in continuous air monitors located on reservations would provide additional air quality data which Region 10 would consider prior to issuing burn bans and/ or declaring an air pollution episode for reservations. Reservations which would be candidates for additional continuous monitors are those where the existing state and local monitoring networks may not adequately characterize the air quality on the reservations and where elevated levels of pollution could be expected to occur.

F. Burn Permits Programs The FARR includes three rules to establish burn permit programs for agricultural burning, forestry burning, and open burning. The Nez Perce Reservation and the Umatilla Indian Reservation are the only reservations where EPA has found, in consultation with the relevant tribe, that it is appropriate to promulgate these rules for burn permit programs.

Development and implementation of the burn permit programs will require an investment of resources on the part of both EPA and the tribes. Each tribe and reservation is unique so EPA will need to work individually with the tribes to tailor programs that recognize current capacity and local needs. The Nez Perce Tribe, for example, already operates a smoke management program ( SMP) for agricultural burning which is implemented in coordination with the State of Idaho and EPA under a Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA). The Nez Perce Tribe also has a Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreement ( DITCA) in place with EPA that provides the mechanism for funding of the Tribe's work on the burn permit program. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation ( CTUIR) does not yet have an SMP, an MOA for burning activities with other jurisdictions, or a DITCA.

Major elements of the burn permit programs ( not including enforcement) will be administered by the tribes on behalf of EPA. An important initial task, therefore, will be the development of Delegation Agreements that identify the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the tribes in implementing the rules. The Delegation Agreements will provide the framework for all aspects of implementation, including development of SMPs, describing the scope and details of the permit programs ( such as permit forms and the process for issuance), MOA development, identifying and prioritizing program resource needs and funding options, revising or developing DITCAs, training, complaint response, and outreach.

Once the rules are final and the Delegation Agreements, the MOAs, and the funding mechanisms are developed, the amount of EPA staff resources can be scaled back to focus on 8 periodic oversight and assessment of the programs, grants administration, technical assistance where appropriate, carrying out responsibilities specified in the MOAs, and enforcement duties.

G. Registration Rule The rule for registration of air pollution sources and the reporting of emissions applies to all air pollution sources except those which are specifically exempted by the rule. Exempted sources include such things as single family residences, small boilers and heaters used for space heating, open burning, and any smaller sources with potential to emit less than 2 tons per year of any air pollutant ( see rule for complete list of exempted sources). Sources subject to the regulatory programs already developed under sections 111 and 112 of the CAA are subject to this rule regardless of the quantity of their emissions.

Sources subject to this rule will need to report their total annual actual emissions of certain air pollutants and will need to collect and retain records supporting their calculations. Existing sources will need to submit their initial registration by February 15, 2007. This initial registration will need to report on their calendar year 2006 emissions. New sources will need to submit their initial registration no later than 90 days after commencing operation and will need to report their estimated emissions for the current calendar year. After sources submit their initial registration, they will need to submit reports of relocation, change of ownership, or closure as necessary, and their annual registration each subsequent February 15th.

EPA's current inventory of sources located in Region 10 Indian Country indicates approximately 120 facilities that are likely to be required to register with EPA. To implement the registration program, Region 10 will continue to refine the inventory of sources by working closely with the tribal air programs and through direct contact with individual facilities. Initially EPA will target its outreach to all the sources on the inventory, providing general information about the applicability of the registration rule requirements. A more targeted compliance assistance effort will likely focus on the specific industrial sectors such as asphalt plants, boilers greater than 400kBtu/ hr, fiberglass facilities, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, etc. These sources are likely to be regulated under the New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) regulatory programs and would, therefore, be required to follow the FARR registration requirements.

Region 10 will need to establish internal mechanisms to manage a registration program. This will include registration forms, guidance documents, and the development of a database to track source specific information and to provide the required reporting elements to the EPA facility reporting system through an automated interface.

H. Title V and Non Title V Permits 9 Promulgation of the FARR will require the reopening of air operating permits which Region 10 has already issued under CAA Title V and 40 CFR Part 71 so that the permits include the applicable new requirements. Reopening a permit requires the same issuance procedures that initial and renewed permits require. Two permits will have less than three years remaining on their terms and will not need to be reopened. To speed up and simplify the process EPA may perform group reopenings. A single notice and comment opportunity could be used for multiple permits.

Section 49.139 of the FARR provides for establishment of source specific federallyenforceable air pollution requirements in operating permits under two different circumstances: 1) a source may request emission limits, typically to cap actual or potential emissions to levels below applicability thresholds of the PSD, NESHAPS, and Title V programs and thereby avoid more detailed obligations under those programs, or 2) the EPA may establish requirements determined to be necessary to assure compliance with the implementation plan, ambient standards, or PSD increments. In both cases there are specific permit preparation and public notice and comment procedures that culminate in issuance of a permit by the EPA. The EPA expects section 49.139 to be used infrequently and little additional effort will be necessary to implement it. Region 10 already has an experienced permit preparation team. Permit actions under section 49.139, including pre application assistance when necessary, will be handled by the Region 10 permits team.

I. Delegation and Work Sharing with Tribes The FARR provides a process by which EPA may delegate to a tribe the authority to administer all or a portion of the federal rules that are in effect for that particular reservation. While a tribe may be delegated administrative authority for the federal rules, EPA will maintain sole authority to enforce the FARR. In order to delegate authority for any of the rules in the FARR, EPA and the tribes will follow the procedures set forth in Section 49.122. The rules specify the content of a tribal request for delegation, a requirement for EPA to consult with appropriate governments regarding the delegation request, and EPA's responsibilities for accomplishing the delegation. When requesting delegation, a tribe will need to demonstrate that is has the technical capability and adequate resources to administer the rule( s) for which it is seeking delegation.

EPA believes that work sharing with tribes may also proceed by mechanisms other than formal delegation agreements. Tribes, if they chose to do so, will be able to assist with a variety of tasks that will contribute to the implementation of the FARR. A grant agreement or an MOA could be used to document shared responsibilities between EPA and a tribe. Activities that will help the tribal communities and regulated entities understand the FARR, that will build the capacity of tribal air professionals to implement air pollution control programs, or that will help tribes evaluate sources of air pollution on reservations would fall within the scope of work that is often funded through EPA grants to tribes. 10 The mechanisms for EPA funding of tribal work on FARR implementation are the CAA 103 and 105 grants and the Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreement ( DITCA). The DITCA was designed specifically by Congress to allow tribes to carry out EPA responsibilities on reservations. As such it is the most appropriate for work that is clearly EPA's responsibility with no comparable tribal interest. Congress provides this funding authority on an annual basis and, thus, its ongoing availability is somewhat uncertain. CAA 103 grants fund tribes to investigate and assess their air quality and sources of air pollution, and to conduct demonstration projects. Under CAA 103 authority tribes may take on some work that is related to implementation of the FARR, as described above. CAA 105 authority provides for grants to tribes primarily for the purpose of implementing a tribe's own regulatory efforts through a Tribal Implementation Plan ( TIP) or tribal code. Where tribal objectives are complementary to the objectives of the FARR, tribes could conduct work under a 105 grant that advances the implementation of the FARR.

As EPA and the tribes build experience in implementing the FARR they will be able to identify which rules are most appropriate for which tribes to seek delegation. It will also help to identify the most efficient mechanisms to provide financial support for the tribal assistance. Because assisting with the FARR rules will build tribal capacity to adopt their own air quality regulations, delegation will serve as a logical step in moving toward their own tribal air programs.

END


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57778-57781]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65317; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ Options Market

September 12, 2011.
    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 September 1, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the
NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ will implement the proposed change on
September 1, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule 7050 governing the rebates and
fees assessed for option orders entered into NOM. Specifically, NASDAQ
is proposing to modify pricing for the Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity
in Penny Options to revising [sic] existing monthly volume tiers. The
Exchange currently pays a Customer Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Options based on four volume tiers as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate to add
                                       Monthly volume        liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1............................  0-499,999...........           $0.26
Tier 2............................  500,000-799,999.....            0.32
Tier 3............................  800,000-1,199,999...            0.36
Tier 4............................  1,200,000 and up....            0.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

By way of example, the Exchange currently pays a Rebate to Add
Liquidity of $0.36 per contract to a NOM Participant that executed
900,000 Customer contracts that added liquidity in Penny Options in a
given month. If the NOM Participant executed 1,500,000 Customer
contracts that added liquidity in Penny Options in a given month, the
Exchange currently would pay a Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.38 per
contract. The Exchange believes the existing monthly volume thresholds
have incentivized firms that route Customer orders to the Exchange to
increase Customer order flow to the Exchange.
    To further encourage firms that route Customer orders to increase
Customer order flow to the Exchange, the Exchange is proposing to
modify the Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in
several ways. First, the Exchange is converting all tier measurements
to average daily volumes from aggregate monthly volumes. This change is
not, in and of itself, a material change.
    Second, based on its experience with the existing volume tiers, the
Exchange is modifying the volume required to

qualify for each of the four existing tiers and the rebates earned by
firms that qualify for each tier.
     Currently, Tier 1 firms add up to 499,999 contracts of
liquidity per month (an average of up to 24,999 per day based on a
month containing 20 trading days), and for that volume they receive a
rebate of $0.26 per contract. The Exchange is changing Tier 1 to cover
up to 24,999 contracts per day, and to pay the same $0.26 rebate. Based
on past experience the Exchange anticipates that all firms currently
receiving the $0.26 rebate will maintain their current level of rebate.
     Currently, Tier 2 firms add between 500,000 and 799,999
contracts per month (between 25,000 and 39,999 per day), and for that
volume they receive a rebate of $0.32 per contract. The Exchange is
changing Tier 2 to cover between 25,000 and 59,999 contracts per day,
and to pay a rebate of $0.34 per contract.\3\ As a result, firms that
contribute between 25,000 and 39,999 contracts per day of Customer
order liquidity will receive a higher rebate (up from $0.32 to $0.34
per contract). However, firms that contribute between 40,000 and 59,999
contracts per day of Customer order liquidity will receive a lower
rebate (down from $0.36 to $0.34 per contract). Based upon current
volume levels and past trading patterns, the Exchange anticipates that
firms will contribute sufficient liquidity to avoid receiving reduced
rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Firms that contribute between 40,000 and 59,999 contracts
per day are currently in Tier 3, and receive a rebate of $0.36 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Currently, Tier 3 firms add between 800,000 and 1,199,999
contracts per month (between 40,000 and 59,999 per day), and for that
volume they receive a rebate of $0.36 per contract. The Exchange is
changing Tier 3 to cover between 60,000 and 124,999 contracts per day,
and to pay a rebate of $0.38 per contract. As a result, firms that
contribute between 40,000 and 59,999 contracts per day of Customer
order liquidity will receive lower rebates (down from $0.36 to $0.34
per contract) as a result of being in new Tier 2. Based upon current
volume levels and past trading patterns, the Exchange anticipates that
firms will contribute sufficient liquidity to avoid receiving reduced
rebates. Firms that contribute between 60,000 and 124,999 contracts per
day are currently in Tier 4, and receive a rebate of $0.38 per
contract. The rebate they receive will not change as a result of now
being in Tier 3.
     Currently, Tier 4 firms add over 1,200,000 contracts per
month (over 60,000 per day), and for that volume they receive a rebate
of $0.38 per contract. The Exchange is changing Tier 4 to cover over
125,000 contracts per day, and to pay a rebate of $0.40 per contract.
As a result, firms that contribute between 60,000 and 124,999 contracts
per day of Customer order liquidity will receive the same rebate of
$0.38 per contract as previously received under old Tier 4, and firms
that provide over 125,000 contracts per day of Customer order liquidity
will receive higher rebates ($0.40 per contract under new Tier 4 up
from $0.38 per contract received under old Tier 4).
    Finally, the Exchange is adding two new tiers to further encourage
the provision of Customer liquidity by participants that also add
liquidity to the Exchange in other ways. The first new tier (Tier 5)
will provide a higher rebate for Participants that meet two separate
criteria: (1) Provide 60,000 or more contracts per day of Customer
order liquidity in Penny options, and (2) provide 60,000 or more
contracts per day of NOM Market Maker liquidity. By meeting the two
criteria, Participants will receive a $0.02 rebate increase ($0.40 for
meeting both criteria, as opposed to $0.38 for meeting only the first).
For the purposes of determining qualification for this tier, the
Exchange will aggregate the trading activity of separate NOM
Participants in calculating the average daily volume if there is at
least 75% common ownership between the NOM Participants.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Aggregation is necessary and appropriate because certain NOM
participants conduct Customer and NOM Market Maker trading activity
through separate but related broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other words, Participants that add significant liquidity as
market makers can receive the same Customer rebate as Participants that
provide substantially more Customer order liquidity (over 125,000
contracts per day). The Exchange believes this will encourage more
participants that also route Customer order flow to register to make
markets on the Exchange.
    The Exchange is adding new Tier 6 to encourage participants in the
Exchange's equity markets to also participate in the Exchange's options
market. Specifically, firms that qualify for a credit under the
Investor Support Program set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7014 \5\ by providing
retail investor liquidity to NASDAQ's equity market can qualify for a
higher rebate on NASDAQ's options market if they contribute 25,000 or
more contracts per day of Customer order liquidity in Penny options on
NOM. This amounts to a rebate of $0.01 per contract higher for any
contracts between 25,000 and 59,999 per day for qualifying participants
in both markets ($0.35 per contract) versus those that participate and
qualify only on NOM ($0.34 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For a detailed description of the Investor Support Program,
see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63270 (November 8, 2010), 75
FR 69489 (November 12, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-141) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness) (the ``ISP Filing''). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 63414 (December 2, 2010), 75 FR 76505
(December 8, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-153) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness); and 63628 (January 3, 2011), 76 FR 1201 (January 7,
2011) (NASDAQ-2010-154) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls. All similarly situated members are
subject to the same fee structure, and access to NASDAQ is offered on
fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed monthly tier structure for
Customer Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Options is equitable,
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because by incentivizing
broker-dealers acting as agent for Customer orders to select the
Exchange as a venue to post Customer orders will attract Customer order
flow and benefit all market participants. While the Exchange is
modifying the required liquidity provision to qualify for Tiers 2, 3
and 4, it is also increasing the rebate available to firms that do
qualify. As a result, the Exchange believes that broker-dealers acting
as agent for Customer orders will in fact be incentivized to bring
additional order flow to the Exchange and that they will obtain higher
rebates.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed Customer
monthly volume tier Rebates to Add Liquidity are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Rebates to Add Liquidity are higher
in Tiers 2, 3 and 4 for Customers as compared to all other market
participants. With respect to Tier 1, the Exchange is proposing to pay
a Customer a lower Rebate to Add Liquidity as compared to a
Professional and NOM Market Maker. The Exchange believes that this
proposal is equitable because the participant submitting

Customer order liquidity has the opportunity to earn higher rebates
with the tier structure as compared to a Professional, who will only
receive a $0.29 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity, and a NOM Market
Maker, who will only receive a $0.30 per contract Rebate to Add
Liquidity. The Exchange believes it not unreasonable to preserve the
existing differential between different types of Participants because
the presence of Customer liquidity enhances the quality of trading on
the Exchange for all Participants to such a great degree. Additionally,
with respect to NOM Market Makers, the proposed fee structure is
equitable because market makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements,\8\ which normally do not apply to other market
participants. Customers receive a higher Rebate to Add Liquidity for
all tiers as compared to a Firm and Non-NOM Market Maker.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
    \9\ A Firm receives a $0.10 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity
and a Non-NOM Market maker receives a $0.25 per contract Rebate to
Add Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that new Tier 5 is not unfairly
discriminatory because market makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants. The Exchange has set a reasonable goal of 60,000 or more
contracts per day for market makers on NOM, an achievable goal that
should encourage increased market maker registration and market making
activity. The Exchange believes that the $0.02 rebate premium is
equitable because that increased market making will, in turn, improve
the amount of liquidity available on the Exchange and improve the
quality of order interaction and executions on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that new Tier 6 is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it encourages increased activity in both the
NASDAQ Options Market and in the Investor Support Program (``ISP'') of
the NASDAQ equity market. The goal of the ISP is to incentivize members
to provide liquidity from individual equity investors to the NASDAQ
Market Center.\10\ Alternatively, new Tier 6 will encourage firms that
already qualify for a credit under the ISP to increase the amount of
Customer order liquidity provided to the NASDAQ Options Market. The
addition of such liquidity, either through the ISP or through increased
Customer order flow, will benefit all Exchange members that participate
in those markets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission has expressed its concern that a significant
percentage of the orders of individual investors are executed at
over the counter (``OTC'') markets, that is, at off-exchange
markets; and that a significant percentage of the orders of
institutional investors are executed in dark pools. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (Concept Release on Equity Market Structure,
``Concept Release''). In the Concept Release, the Commission has
recognized the strong policy preference under the Act in favor of
price transparency and displayed markets. The Commission published
the Concept Release to invite public comment on a wide range of
market structure issues, including high frequency trading and un-
displayed, or ``dark,'' liquidity. See also Mary L. Schapiro,
Strengthening Our Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic
Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010) (``Schapiro Speech,'' available on
the Commission website)(comments of Commission Chairman on what she
viewed as a troubling trend of reduced participation in the equity
markets by individual investors, and that nearly 30 percent of
volume in U.S.-listed equities is executed in venues that do not
display their liquidity or make it generally available to the
public).
    \11\ NASDAQ Rule 7018(a) already provides incentives for firms
to participate in both NASDAQ's equity market and its options
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed tier structure for Customer
Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Options is also reasonable because
the amount of the rebate is similar to a tiered rebate offered by NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). NYSE Arca adopted a per contract rate on
all posted liquidity in Customer Penny Pilot Issues by aggregating
total contracts executed that added liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues in
a given month.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Arca's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed tier structure for Customer
Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Options is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay a Rebate to Add
Liquidity to Customers executing Penny Options based on the monthly
tiers proposed herein.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges
if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive or
rebate opportunities to be inadequate. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rebate structure and tiers are competitive and similar to
other rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the rebates present
on the Exchange today and substantially influences the proposals set
forth above.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution is extremely competitive, members may readily opt
to disfavor NASDAQ's execution services if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. For this reason and the reasons
discussed in connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule
change, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will
impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-127 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-NASDAQ-2011-127. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-
2011-127 and should be submitted on or before October 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23721 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13855-13857]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05749]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77328; File No. TP 16-4]

Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17
and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to PowerShares DWA Tactical
Multi-Asset Income Portfolio Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2)
and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M

March 9, 2016.
    By letter dated March 9, 2016 (the ``Letter''), as supplemented by
conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets,
counsel for PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II (the ``Trust''),
on behalf of the Trust, PowerShares DWA Tactical Multi-Asset Income
Portfolio (the ``Fund''), any national securities exchange on or
through which shares issued by the Fund (``Shares'') may subsequently
trade, Invesco Distributors, Inc. (the ``Distributor''), and persons or
entities engaging in transactions in Shares (collectively, the
``Requestors''), requested exemptions, or interpretive or no-action
relief, from Rule 10b-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (``Exchange Act''), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in
connection with secondary market transactions in Shares and the
creation or redemption of aggregations of Shares of at least 50,000
shares (``Creation Units'').
    The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
(``1940 Act''), as an open-end management investment company. The Fund
seeks to track the performance of the underlying index, the Dorsey
Wright[supreg] Multi-Asset Income Index (the ``Index''). The Fund
intends to operate as an ``ETF of ETFs'' by seeking to track the
performance of its underlying Index through, under normal
circumstances,\1\ investing at least 90% of its total assets \2\ in up
to five ETFs that comprise the Index. Except for the fact that the Fund
will operate as an ETF of ETFs, the Fund will operate in a manner
identical to the ETFs that are included in the Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``under normal circumstances'' includes, but is not
limited to, the absence of adverse market, economic, political, or
other conditions, including extreme volatility or trading halts in
the securities markets or the financial markets generally;
operational issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market
information; or force majeure-type events, such as systems failure,
natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of
terrorism, riot or labor disruption, or any similar intervening
circumstance.
    \2\ The remaining ten percent of the Fund's total assets may be
invested in securities (including other underlying funds) not
included in the underlying Index and in money market instruments or
funds that invest exclusively in money market instruments, subject
to applicable limitations under the 1940 Act. Regardless of the
representation that the Fund generally will invest at least 90% of
its total assets in securities that comprise the underlying Index,
the Fund seeks to have a tracking error of less than five percent in
any given month over a one-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
     Shares of the Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-
end management investment company that is registered with the
Commission;
     The Trust will continuously redeem Creation Units at net
asset value (``NAV''), and the secondary market price of the Shares
should not vary substantially from the NAV of such Shares;
     Shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC or another exchange in accordance with exchange
listing standards that are, or will become, effective pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act (the ``Exchange''); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Further, the Letter states that should the Shares also trade
on a market pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, such trading
will be conducted pursuant to self-regulatory organization rules
that have become effective pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     All ETFs in which the Fund is invested will meet all
conditions set forth in a relevant class relief letter,\4\ will have
received individual relief from the Commission, or will be able to rely
upon individual relief even though they are not named parties (for
example, a no-action letter);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Act Rel. No. 67215 (June 19, 2012); 77 FR 37941
(June 25, 2012); Letter from Catherine McGuire, Esq., Chief Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, to the Securities Industry
Association Derivative Products Committee (November 21, 2005);
Letter from Racquel L. Russell, Branch Chief, Division of Market
Regulation, to George T. Simon, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP (June 21,
2006); Letter from James A. Brigagliano, Acting Associate Director,
Division of Market Regulation, to Stuart M. Strauss, Esq., Clifford
Chance US LLP (October 24, 2006); Letter from James A. Brigagliano,
Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, to Benjamin
Haskin, Esq., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (April 9, 2007); Letter
from Josephine Tao, Assistant Director, Division of Trading and
Markets, to Domenick Pugliese, Esq., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker LLP (June 27, 2007); see also Staff Legal Bulletin No. 9,
``Frequently Asked Questions About Regulation M'' (April 12, 2002)
(regarding actively-managed ETFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     At least 70% of the Fund is comprised of component
securities that will meet the minimum public float and minimum average
daily trading volume thresholds under the ``actively-traded
securities'' definition found in Regulation M for excepted securities
during each of the previous two months of trading prior to formation of
the Fund;
     All of the components of the Index will have publicly
available last sale trade information;
     The intra-day proxy value of the Fund per share and the
value of the Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market data
vendor throughout the trading day;
     On each business day before the opening of business on the
Exchange, the Fund's custodian, through the National Securities
Clearing Corporation, will make available the list of the names and the
numbers of securities and other assets of the Fund's portfolio that
will be applicable that day to creation and redemption requests;
     The Exchange or other market information provider will
disseminate (i) continuously every 15 seconds throughout the trading
day, through the facilities of the consolidated tape, the market value
of a Share, and (ii) every 15 seconds throughout the trading day, a
calculation of the intra-day indicative value of a Share;
     The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the
transparency of the Fund's portfolio and the availability of the intra-
day indicative value, the liquidity of securities held by the Fund, and
the ability to acquire such securities, as well as the arbitrageurs'
ability to create workable hedges;

     The Fund will invest solely in liquid securities;
     The Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate an
effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create
workable hedges;
     The Trust believes that arbitrageurs are expected to take
advantage of price variations between the Fund's market price and its
NAV; and
     A close alignment between the market price of Shares and
the Fund's NAV is expected.

Regulation M

    While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management
investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rules 101 and
102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon those exceptions
for the Shares.\5\ However, we find that it is appropriate in the
public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors to
grant a conditional exemption from Rules 101 and 102 to persons who may
be deemed to be participating in a distribution of Shares of the Fund
as described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ While ETFs operate under exemptions from the definitions of
``open-end company'' under Section 5(a)(1) of the 1940 Act and
``redeemable security'' under Section 2(a)(32) of the 1940 Act, the
Fund and its securities do not meet those definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 101 of Regulation M

    Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule
that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any ``distribution
participant'' and its ``affiliated purchasers'' from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase
any security that is the subject of a distribution until after the
applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the
Rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines ``distribution'' to mean any
offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading
transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of
special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101
of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters,
brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or
are participating in a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a
continuous distribution, and, as such, the restricted period in which
distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are
prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others
to bid for or purchase extends indefinitely.
    Based on the representations and the facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management
investment company that will continuously redeem at the NAV Creation
Unit size aggregations of the Shares of the Fund and that a close
alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is
expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public
interest, and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the
Trust an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with
respect to the Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a
distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares
during their participation in such distribution.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, we confirm the interpretation that a
redemption of Creation Unit size aggregations of Shares of the Fund
and the receipt of securities in exchange by a participant in a
distribution of Shares of the Fund would not constitute an ``attempt
to induce any person to bid for or purchase, a covered security
during the applicable restricted period'' within the meaning of Rule
101 of Regulation M and therefore would not violate that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 102 of Regulation M

    Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security
holders, and any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a
covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection
with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer
or selling security holder.
    Based on the representations and the facts presented in the Letter,
particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management
investment company that will redeem at the NAV Creation Unit size
aggregations of Shares of the Fund and that a close alignment between
the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the
Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and
consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust an
exemption under paragraph (e) of Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect
to the Fund, thus permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund
during the continuous offering of such Shares.

Rule 10b-17

    Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class
of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified
actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class
of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the
representations and the facts presented in the Letter, and subject to
the conditions below, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in
the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors,
to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because
market participants will receive timely notification of the existence
and timing of a pending distribution, and thus the concerns that the
Commission raised in adopting Rule 10b-17 will not be implicated.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We also note that timely compliance with Rule 10b-
17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) would be impractical in light of the Fund's
nature because it is not possible for the Fund to accurately project
ten days in advance what dividend, if any, would be paid on a
particular record date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 101(d) of Regulation M, that
the Trust, based on the representations and facts presented in the
Letter, is exempt from the requirements of Rule 101 with respect to the
Fund, thus permitting persons who may be deemed to be participating in
a distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares
during their participation in such distribution.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of Regulation M,
that the Trust, based on the representations and the facts presented in
the Letter, is exempt from the requirements of Rule 102 with respect to
the Fund, thus permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during
the continuous offering of such Shares.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 10b-17(b)(2), that the
Trust, based on the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter and subject to the conditions below, is exempt from the
requirements of Rule 10b-17 with respect to the transactions in the
Shares of the Fund.
    This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
     The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17, except for Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
     The Trust will provide the information required by Rule
10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable
before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later
than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to
distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.

This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any
time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. This
exemption is based on the facts presented and the representations made
in the Letter. Any different facts or representations may

require a different response. Persons relying upon this exemptive
relief shall discontinue transactions involving the Shares of the Fund,
pending presentation of the facts for the Commission's consideration,
in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any of the
facts or representations made by the Requestors, and as is the case
with all preceding letters, particularly with respect to the close
alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV. In
addition, persons relying on this exemption are directed to the anti-
fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act,
particularly Sections 9(a), 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
    Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable
provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons
relying on this exemption. This Order should not be considered a view
with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may
raise, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of the disclosure
concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to,
the proposed transactions.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(6) and (9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05749 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54504-54507]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17228]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0716; FRL-10012-88-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Beaumont-Port Arthur Area Second
Maintenance Plan for 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA is approving a second
ten-year maintenance plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) through 2032
in the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) area.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0716. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Riley, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above
if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our June
8, 2020 Proposal (85 FR 35041, ``Proposal''). In that document we
proposed to approve, as a revision to the Texas SIP, an updated
(second) 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the BPA area. On

February 5, 2019, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
submitted the second maintenance plan for the BPA area. The maintenance
plan is designed to keep the area in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (2032).
    Our June 8, 2020 Proposal provided a detailed description of the
revisions \1\ and the rationale for EPA's proposed action, together
with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment
period for the action closed on July 8, 2020. See the docket for this
rulemaking for a copy of the public comments received and our Proposal
at 85 FR 35041 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The revision included motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case
2032). Since EPA's current transportation conformity regulation
requires a regional emissions analysis only during the time period
beginning one year after a nonattainment designation for a
particular NAAQS until the effective date of revocation of that
NAAQS (40 CFR 93.109(c)), a regional emissions analysis using MVEBs
is not required for conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS because that NAAQS has been revoked (80 FR 12264).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments on our proposal from two commenters: TCEQ and
an anonymous citizen. Our responses to the comments are below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment 1: TCEQ expressed support of EPA's proposed approval of the
BPA area's second 10-year maintenance plan under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and stated its intent to withdraw from EPA's consideration both
the request to redesignate the BPA area to attainment for the revoked
1-hour ozone standard and the 10-year maintenance plan for the 1-hour
ozone standard.
    Response 1: EPA appreciates TCEQ's support of our June 8, 2020
Proposal, and informing us of their plans to withdraw the 1-hour ozone
standard redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan for the BPA
area.
    Comment 2: The Commenter argues that EPA cannot approve maintenance
plans which rely on emission reductions attributable to Federal mobile
source control strategies which EPA is actively attempting to roll
back.
    Response 2: We disagree with the assertion that EPA is taking steps
to roll back Federal mobile source control strategies. The Commenter
appears to reference the final rulemaking entitled ``The Safer
Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years
2021-2026'' (SAFE Rule Part Two). This is the sole example given by the
Commenter of EPA's alleged rollback of Federal mobile source control
strategies. This rulemaking was developed by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA to finalize updated
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish
new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. See 85 FR 24174
(April 30, 2020). We note that CAFE and GHG standards are separate and
distinct from EPA standards for control of criteria pollutants from
motor vehicles, such as those in the Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and
fuel standards.\2\ As such, auto manufacturers must simultaneously
comply with unique requirements under both of these sets of standards,
as well as any other Federal standards applicable to specific vehicle
types. The SAFE Rule Part Two does not weaken or affect the regulatory
framework for any of the Federal mobile source control strategies the
State of Texas relied upon (e.g. Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 light-duty
and medium-duty passenger vehicle standards; heavy-duty vehicle
standards; low sulfur gasoline and diesel standards; National Low
Emission Vehicle standards; and gasoline volatility standards) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC)
ozone precursor emissions reductions in developing the BPA area's
second 10-year maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
therefore the state's reliance upon these standards as valid Federal
control measures is appropriate for this SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SAFE Rule Part Two is a component of a larger proposed
rulemaking \3\ which also yielded the final action entitled ``The Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National
Program'' (One National Program). See 84 FR 51310 (September 27, 2019).
The One National Program negates the ability of California and states
that adopted California's zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate
and/or GHG emissions standards to enforce such standards. Neither the
State of Texas nor the BPA area have adopted local tailpipe GHG
emissions standards or local ZEV mandates; therefore, the One National
Program rulemaking also does not affect any of the Federal mobile
source control strategies relied upon by the State of Texas in
developing the BPA area's second 10-year maintenance plan for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On August 24, 2018, the EPA and the NHTSA jointly published
in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled,
``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model
Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.'' In the NPRM, EPA
proposed new GHG standards and NHTSA proposed new CAFE standards for
model year 2021 to 2026 light duty vehicles. EPA also proposed to
withdraw the waiver it had previously provided to California for
that State's model year 2021 to 2025 GHG and ZEV standards under
section 209 of the Clean Air Act. See 83 FR 42986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFE Rule Part Two will not result in on-road emissions increases
of NOX or VOCs in the BPA area; however, there may be some
small NOX and VOC emissions increases in area and point
source emissions due to potential increases in sales, transport and
production of gasoline. As was noted by the Commenter, the maintenance
plan has projected some growth in emissions from these categories. Even
if this growth is slightly underestimated due to SAFE Rule Part Two
changes or other reasons, EPA is confident that any such underestimate
would be substantially less than the overall decreases in
NOX and VOC emissions that are projected to occur between
2014 and 2032, which are discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking
for this action.
    Contrary to the assertion that EPA is taking steps to roll back
Federal mobile source control strategies, on January 6, 2020, the
Administrator signed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
soliciting pre-proposal comments on the Clean Truck Initiative (CTI),
which, if finalized, would tighten NOX emissions standards
for heavy-duty vehicles for the first time since 2001.
    Finally, we note that Texas has adopted a contingency plan, as part
of the maintenance plan for the BPA area, to address possible future
ozone air quality problems, as required by section 175A of the CAA. As
explained in our June 8, 2020 Proposal, this contingency plan includes
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area to attainment of the NAAQS. The maintenance
plan provides that a monitored and certified violation of the NAAQS
triggers the requirement to consider, adopt, and implement the plan's
contingency measures. Additionally, in the event that any of the
Federal measures upon which the State has relied are repealed or
weakened, the EPA has Clean Air Act authority, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7410(k)(5), to require a state to revise an approved SIP if it finds
that it has become substantially inadequate to maintain the NAAQS.
Moreover, CAA section 175A provides the EPA discretion to require the
state to submit a revised SIP should the area fail to maintain the
NAAQS.

II. Final Action

    We are approving the second maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the BPA area, submitted by TCEQ on February 5, 2019, as a
revision to the Texas SIP. This maintenance plan is designed to keep
the area in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the second 10-
year maintenance period. As further explained in our Proposal, we are
not approving the submitted 2032 NOX and VOC motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for transportation conformity purposes
because a regional emissions analysis using MVEBs is not required for
conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS because that NAAQS
has been revoked. We are finding that the projected emissions inventory
which reflects these budgets is consistent with maintenance of the
revoked 1997 ozone standard. This action is being taken under section
175A of the Act.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 3, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, in paragraph (e), amend the table ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' by adding an entry for ``Beaumont-Port Arthur Second 10-Year
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard.'' at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date         Comments
                                   nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Beaumont-Port Arthur Second 10-   Hardin, Jefferson          2/5/2019  9/2/2020, [Insert
 Year Maintenance Plan for the     and Orange                           Federal Register
 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard.       Counties.                            citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-17228 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60409-60410]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0466]

Removal of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to
the United States From Two Port Facilities in C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that it is modifying the conditions
of entry for vessels arriving to the United States from C[ocirc]te
d'Ivoire by adding an exception to the conditions of entry for two
facilities in the Republic of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire.

DATES: The policy takes effect January 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Juliet Hudson, International Port Security Evaluation
Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110,
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(97.f).
Section 70110(a) provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security may
impose conditions of entry into the United States from ports that are
not maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures. Section 70110(d)
provides that these conditions may be removed upon Secretary's
determination that the measures are maintained. The Secretary delegated
the authority to carry out the provisions of these sections to the
Coast Guard. Section 552(a)(1)(E) requires an agency to provide a
Federal Register notice to the public in regards to any amendment,
revision or repeal of a rule adopted as authorized by law. The
Regulatory Docket for this Notice (USCG-2017-0466) contains previous
notices imposing or removing conditions of entry on vessels arriving
from certain countries.
    On May 27, 2011, the Coast Guard determined that ports in the
Republic of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire did not maintain effective anti-
terrorism measures and that C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire's designated
authority's oversight, access control and cargo control remained
deficient (76 FR 30954). However, since 2014 the Coast Guard has
assessed and found that the port facilities listed in Table 1 do have
effective anti-terrorism measures. As such, port facilities listed in
Table 1 are exempted from the conditions of entry previously imposed.

                    Table 1--Exempted Port Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Port                             IMO port No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carena Shipyard.........................  CIABJ-0004
Terminal A Containers, Abidjan..........  CIABJ-0015
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, beginning January 3, 2018, the conditions of entry
shown in Table 2 below will apply to any vessel that visited a non-
exempted C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire port facility in its last five port calls.

 Table 2--Conditions of Entry for Vessels Visiting C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire's
                       Ports Not Listed in Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             No.                           Each vessel must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Implement measures per the vessel's
                                security plan equivalent to Security
                                Level 2 while in a port in the Republic
                                of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire. As defined in
                                the ISPS Code and incorporated herein,
                                ``Security Level 2'' refers to the
                                ``level for which appropriate additional
                                protective security measures shall be
                                maintained for a period of time as a
                                result of heightened risk of a security
                                incident.''
2............................  Ensure that each access point to the
                                vessel is guarded and that the guards
                                have total visibility of the exterior
                                (both landside and waterside) of the
                                vessel while the vessel is in ports in
                                the Republic of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire.
3............................  Guards may be provided by the vessel's
                                crew; however, additional crewmembers
                                should be placed on the vessel if
                                necessary to ensure that limits on
                                maximum hours of work are not exceeded
                                and/or minimum hours of rest are met, or
                                provided by outside security forces
                                approved by the vessel's master and
                                Company Security Officer. As defined in
                                the ISPS Code and incorporated herein,
                                ``Company Security Officer'' refers to
                                the ``person designated by the Company
                                for ensuring that a ship security
                                assessment is carried out; that a ship
                                security plan is developed, submitted
                                for approval, and thereafter implemented
                                and maintained and for liaison with port
                                facility security officers and the ship
                                security officer.''
4............................  Attempt to execute a Declaration of
                                Security while in a port in the Republic
                                of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire.
5............................  Log all security actions in the vessel's
                                log; and
6............................  Report actions taken to the cognizant
                                Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP)
                                prior to arrival into U.S. waters.
7............................  In addition, based on the findings of the
                                Coast Guard boarding or examination, the
                                vessel may be required to ensure that
                                each access point to the vessel is
                                guarded by armed, private security
                                guards and that they have total
                                visibility of the exterior (both
                                landside and waterside) of the vessel
                                while in U.S. ports. The number and
                                position of the guards has to be
                                acceptable to the cognizant COTP prior
                                to the vessel's arrival.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The list of countries that do not maintain effective anti-terrorist
measures is available in a Port Security Advisory notice available at
http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/International-Domestic-Port-Assessment/; Port
Security Advisory link.

    Dated: November 1, 2017.
Charles W. Ray,
Deputy Commandant for Operations, USCG.
[FR Doc. 2017-27402 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P