[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30506-30508]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12833]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75029; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay Implementation of Rule 15.2A

May 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 20, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of Rule 15.2A.
There is no proposed change to the rule text.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On August 13, 2014, the Commission approved CBOE Rules 6.53(y) and
15.2A.\5\ Rule 6.53(y) defines a tied to stock order \6\ and requires
the representing Trading Permit Holder to include an indicator on each
tied to stock order upon systemization, subject to certain exceptions.
Rule 15.2A requires, in a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange,
each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH''), on the business day following the
order execution date, to report to the Exchange certain information
regarding the executed stock or convertible security legs of qualified
contingent cross (``QCC'') orders,\7\ stock-option

orders and other tied to stock orders that the TPH executed on the
Exchange that trading day. The Exchange stated in rule filing SR-CBOE-
2014-040 that it would issue a circular announcing the implementation
date for these rules within 90 days of the date of filing, which
implementation date would be within 180 days of the date of filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72839 (August 13, 2014),
79 FR 49123 (August 19, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-040) (order approving
Rules 6.53(y) and 15.2A).
    \6\ Rule 6.53(y) provides that an order is ``tied to stock'' if,
at the time the Trading Permit Holder representing the order on the
Exchange receives the order (if the order is a customer order) or
initiates the order (if the order is a is a proprietary order), has
knowledge that the order is coupled with an order(s) for the
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock
(``convertible security'' and, together with underlying stock,
``non-option'').
    \7\ A QCC order is an order to buy (sell) at least 1,000
standard option contracts or 10,000 mini-option contracts that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade coupled
with a contra-side order to sell (buy) an equal number of contracts.
These orders may only be entered in the standard increments
applicable to simple orders in the options class under Rule 6.42.
For purposes of this order type, a ``qualified contingent trade'' is
a transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed
as agent or principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS
stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act; (b)
all components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. QCC orders may execute without
exposure provided the execution is not at the same price as a public
customer order resting in the electronic book and is at or between
the national best bid or offer. A QCC order will be cancelled if it
cannot be executed. See Rule 6.53(u). The Exchange notes that it
deactivated the QCC functionality effective August 11, 2014 and will
announce any reactivation of QCC functionality by Regulatory
Circular. See Regulatory Circular RG14-121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 7, 2015, CBOE submitted a rule filing to delay the
implementation of these rules based on feedback it received from
TPHs.\8\ The Exchange stated in that rule filing that it would issue a
circular announcing the implementation date for the rules within 90
days of the date of the rule filing, which implementation date would be
within 180 days of the date of filing. In accordance with that filing,
the Exchange recently issued a regulatory circular on April 7, 2015,
which announced a July 1, 2015 implementation date for the tied to
stock marking and reporting requirements.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74067 (January 15,
2015), 80 FR 3267 (January 22, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-004) (notice of
immediate effectiveness of rule filing).
    \9\ CBOE Regulatory Circular RG15-056 (April 7, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange believes there has been sufficient training and
circulars provided to Trading Permit Holders on the marking requirement
to move forward with implementation of that requirement on July 1,
2015, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to delay the
implementation of the reporting requirement. Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to further delay the implementation date of the tied to stock
reporting requirement for tied to stock orders.\10\ During this time,
the Exchange plans to evaluate the information obtained via the marking
requirement under Rule 6.53(y) in conjunction with information
available through other sources and further consider the reporting
requirement format. In that regard, the Exchange notes that CBOE
recently entered into a Regulatory Services Agreement with the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). As a result,
CBOE plans to evaluate the format of the reports with FINRA to ensure
that the information to be provided in the reports can be incorporated
into surveillances in an efficient and effective manner.\11\ Therefore,
the Exchange seeks to extend the implementation date of Rule 15.2A
until the Exchange can conclude whether or not this additional
information is necessary in order to enhance its ability to effectively
monitor and conduct surveillance of the CBOE markets with respect to
orders that are tied to stock whose execution information is not
electronically captured by the audit trail.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to Regulatory Circular RG13-102, CBOE imposed a
reporting requirement with respect to QCC orders prior to the
adoption of Rule 15.2A. Once the Exchange implements Rule 15.2A, the
reporting requirement in that rule will supersede the current QCC
order reporting requirement described in that circular. As noted
above, QCC functionality is currently not active. However, if the
Exchange reactivates the functionality prior to implementation of
Rule 15.2A, then the reporting requirement for QCC orders described
in Regulatory Circular RG13-102 will continue to be in effect until
the implementation of Rule 15.2A.
    \11\ During this delay, CBOE intends to review the number of
tied to stock orders for which information regarding the stock or
convertible security leg is not available from CBOE's internal data,
which will permit CBOE to evaluate the number of reports it can
expect to receive and the potential impact of the reports on CBOE's
surveillances.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that Rule 15.2A, Interpretation .03
provides that a Market-Maker (or its clearing firm) may include the
information required by Rule 15.2A in the equity reported submitted
to CBOE pursuant to Rule 8.9(b). Because the proposed rule change is
delaying the implementation of Rule 15.2A, Market-Makers (or their
clearing firms) will continue to submit reports pursuant to Rule
8.9(b) in the same manner they do today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange expects its evaluation to be completed and to
implement the reporting requirement within 12 to 18 months of the date
of this filing. This will provide CBOE with sufficient time to conduct
this evaluation and TPHs with sufficient time to implement any
potential changes to the reporting requirement format. The Exchange
will issue a regulatory circular announcing the new implementation date
for the reporting requirement as least 90 days prior to that date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the delayed implementation of
Rule 15.2A will provide the Exchange with sufficient time to evaluate
the information obtained through the marking requirement and the
related reporting requirement format to ensure that the Exchange
receives reports from TPHs in a manner that can be incorporated into
surveillance systems in an efficient and effective manner. This will
ultimately improve the Exchange's ability to tie executed non-option
legs to the applicable option legs that were separately submitted for
execution, which will assist in the Exchange's efforts to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices with respect to tied to
stock orders.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change does not
impose any burden on competition, as it is simply seeking to delay the
implementation of the tied to stock reporting requirement.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-051. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-051 and should be
submitted on or before June 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12833 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20292-20293]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08656]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0047; FRL-9961-49-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Requirements for Continuous Emission Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision pertains to removing a discontinued
Technical Memorandum 90-01 (TM 90-01) from Maryland's SIP, which is now
superseded by a new continuous emission monitoring (CEM) regulation.
Maryland previously used TM 90-01 to govern the CEM requirements for
fuel burning equipment. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0047 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In May 2010, the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) discontinued the use of TM 90-01 ``Continuous
Emission Monitoring Policies and Procedures'' and codified these
requirements for CEMs in Maryland regulation COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
``Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements.'' MDE had been in the
process of establishing unique requirements for CEMs, separate from the
requirements for continuous opacity monitors (COMs), and broke out the
requirements into separate COMAR regulations. On November 7, 2016 (81
FR 78048), EPA approved these separate regulations into Maryland's SIP.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Evaluation

    On July 1, 2016, MDE submitted a SIP revision to remove
discontinued TM 90-01 from Maryland's SIP because TM 90-01 had been
superseded by COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. EPA previously approved TM 90-01 into
Maryland's SIP on February 28, 1996. See 61 FR 7418. MDE also submitted
a revised version of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Iron and Steel Production Installations'' for inclusion
in the Maryland SIP which removed a reference to TM 90-01 in section
C(3)(b) of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and added a reference to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.
    On November 7, 2016 (81 FR 78048), EPA approved COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
into the Maryland SIP. This newly SIP approved regulation establishes
general requirements, quality assurance provisions, and monitoring and
compliance requirements for the installation of CEMs for each of the
applicable source categories. TM 90-01 previously had addressed quality
assurance provisions for CEMs and had also established levels of
enforcement actions for Maryland for visible emissions exceedances
based on a source's operating time during a calendar quarter, and
allowed exceedances to occur without follow up enforcement for up to 10
percent of a source's operating time in addition to an existing 6-
minute exclusion. Maryland's CEM quality assurance requirements are now
in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> which is in the Maryland SIP. The removal of TM
90-01, which contained enforcement exclusions related to the number of
violations and data availability from CEMs and COMs, strengthens
enforcement of Maryland's visible emissions standards. COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> does not contain any exclusions for the operation of CEMs.
    Therefore, EPA is removing a moot memorandum from the SIP which has
already been replaced by a regulatory requirement and thus this removal
will not interfere with any CAA requirement, with any national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS), or with any reasonable further progress
and the removal meets requirements in section 110(l) of the CAA. Due to
the removal of TM 90-01, MDE has also removed a reference to TM 90-01
in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> in section C(3)(b) and added a reference to COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> which EPA finds appropriate. This amendment to COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> will also be reflected in the SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the July 1, 2016 Maryland SIP revision
submittal, which seeks removal of discontinued TM 90-01 from the
Maryland SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. The CEM
requirements for quality assurance, monitoring and other technical
requirements under discontinued TM 90-01 have been superseded and
codified under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to include in a final
EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> in the amendment to COMAR

<IP_ADDRESS>C(3)(b), as previously discussed in section II in this
rulemaking. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this proposed rulemaking to remove discontinued TM 90-
01 from Maryland's SIP and include revised COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> in the SIP
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to
apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 3, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-08656 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7820-7823]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53235; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-92]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Increasing Certain Fees Charged
by the Exchange to Its Members and Member Organizations

February 6, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 23, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``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 the NYSE. On February
2, 2006, the NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\
The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the NYSE under section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the NYSE made non-substantive changes to
the text of the proposed rule change.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE proposes to modify certain fees that the Exchange charges
its members and member organizations. The proposed rule change
increases the following fees: (1) Margin Extension Fees; (2) The Series
7 (General Securities Registered Representative) Examination
Development Fee; (3) Statutory Disqualification Fees; and (4) the
session fee for the regulatory element of the continuing education
requirements of NYSE Rule 345A (``Continuing Education for Registered
Persons''). Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].

NYSE 2005 Price List

* * * * *
    Pages 1-8 No changes.
Registration Fees
* * * * *
Credit Extensions
Amount per extension [$2.00]$4.00 \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The $4.00 fee is effective as of January 1, 2006. The fee
was $2.00 prior to January 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
Statutory Disqualification Filing Fee [1,000.00]$1,500.00

Statutory Disqualification Review Fee $1,000.00 \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The $1,000.00 fee is effective as of January 1, 2006. There
was no fee before for the review of statutory disqualification
applications, prior to January 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Regulatory Element Fee $75.00 \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The $75.00 fee is effective as of January 1, 2006. The fee
was $60.00, prior to January 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing Fees: Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> for information.

Qualification Examinations

Series 7 Fee $100.00 \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The $100.00 fee is effective as of January 1, 2006. The fee
was $90.00, prior to January 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE 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. NYSE has
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase certain qualification examination
and regulatory fees \10\ it assesses on its members and member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2005 Price List delineates Regulatory Fees, except for
Qualification Examinations. The Price List can be found at http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/2005pricelist_a.pdf.
 It will be updated in 2006

to also include qualification examination fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Margin Extension Fees. Under Regulation T \11\ of the Federal
Reserve System and Rule 15c3-3 \12\ under the Act, broker-dealers may
file on behalf of customers requests to extend under ``exceptional
circumstances'' the time period which customers have to pay for a
security purchased or to deliver a security sold. Since January 1978,
the Exchange has charged member organizations a $2 fee per extension
request for processing these extensions of time through the Exchange's
automated Margin Extension Systems (``MEX'').\13\ MEX maintains a
history of Regulation T extensions submitted to the Exchange for each
customer, and thus helps prevent excessive numbers of requests and
customer abuses of the extension privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 CFR 220.1-12.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
    \13\ See NYSE Information Memo 77-59, dated December 30, 1977 in
which the Exchange announced a new fee schedule for charges for
specific services, including extension charges, provided by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of enhancements to the MEX systems, increasing costs
associated with providing these services to broker-dealers on behalf of
customers and expenses incurred in monitoring for compliance with
applicable margin and sales practice rules the Exchange is proposing to
increase this fee to $4 an extension request. The proposed fee increase
would be effective January 1, 2006.
    Series 7 Examination Development Fee. The Series 7 (General
Securities Registered Representatives Qualification Examination) is
developed, maintained, and owned by the Exchange. It is intended to
safeguard the investing public by helping to ensure that registered
representatives are competent to perform their jobs. Given this
purpose, the Series 7 examination seeks to measure accurately and
reliably the degree to which each candidate possesses the knowledge,
skills and abilities needed to perform the critical functions of a
registered representative. The examination is 6 hours and consists of
250 multiple-choice questions.
    Currently the fee for the Series 7 examination is $225. Of the
$225, the NASD receives $135 and the Exchange receives $90. The NASD's
fee is based on the cost to NASD to schedule and administer the
examination, maintain records, and undertake systems changes.
    The Exchange development fee includes costs incurred to develop and
implement the Series 7 examination as well as to monitor for compliance
with applicable registration, reporting and sales practices rules. NASD
has filed a proposed rule change increasing the administration fee to
$150.\14\ This fee applies to all NYSE members and member organizations
that are also members of NASD and to NYSE only members and member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52981 (December 19,
2005), 70 FR 76480 (December 27, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-133). The
actual change proposed in the filing is an increase in the Series 7
fee from $225 to $250, of which $150 is the administration fee paid
to the NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the development fee from $90 to
$100. The total examination and development fees for each individual
who takes the Series 7 examination for registration as a Registered
Representative will be $250. The fee would be effective January 1,
2006.
    Since the implementation of the Series 7 examination, the Exchange
has continued to update, as necessary, the examination content and
questions, maintain statistics and conduct various committee meetings.
Accordingly, this fee will be reassessed on an on-going basis, as is
the case with various other NYSE qualification examinations.
    Statutory Disqualification Fees. NYSE Rule 346(f) (Limitations-
Employment and Association with Members and Member Organizations)
provides, in part, that except as otherwise permitted by the Exchange,
no member, member organization, allied member, approved person, or
employee shall have associated with it any person who is known to be
subject to a statutory disqualification as defined in section
3(a)(39)\15\ of the Act. NYSE Rule 346 further provides that any member
organization seeking permission to have such person continue to be or
become associated with it shall pay a fee in an amount to be determined
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act prohibits a person (including broker-dealers) subject to a
statutory disqualification (e.g., a suspension or bar by the Commission
or another exchange or being convicted of certain criminal activities)
from being associated with a broker-dealer unless specific application
to the Commission for such association is made by a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') on behalf of the person. The SRO makes such
application after investigation of the facts surrounding the request.
Specifically, Rule 19h-1\16\ under the Exchange Act provides, in part,
that any SRO proposing to admit or continue any person's association
with a member, notwithstanding a statutory disqualification, as defined
in section 3(a)(39) under the Exchange Act,\17\ shall file a notice
with the Commission of such proposed admission or continuance.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19h-1.
    \17\ As a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, persons found to
have violated certain state securities and insurance regulations and
banking laws are also now subject to statutory disqualification.
    \18\ Under Rule 19h-1, a member organization willing to employ a
person subject to a statutory disqualification makes an application
to the Exchange for approval. If the Exchange approves the employing
firm's application, it would submit it to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with a Rule 19h-1 filing made on behalf of an
individual, the various Exchange Divisions, including Member Firm
Regulation and Enforcement, review various documents, including a
description of the individual's proposed duties and responsibilities.
In conducting such reviews, the Exchange examines the circumstances
surrounding the statutory disqualification and requests verification
that all terms and conditions of the disqualification are met. Further,
the Exchange reviews the firm's disciplinary and examination history,
including any open matters before its Enforcement division. The purpose
of the review is to ensure that adequate supervisory procedures are in
effect. In connection with the Rule 19h-1 filing, the Exchange also
responds to comments by Commission staff.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In certain instances, the Commission may request additional
information or recommend that additional supervisory controls be in
place before approving an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When such filings are made on behalf of an entity (e.g., a member
firm), the process is similar to what is described above. In addition,
the Exchange will request information from a firm as to what procedures
were put in place to prevent a recurrence, and/or verification of
payment of fines and/or compliance with an undertaking. The Exchange's
Enforcement Division reviews the filings/applications and documents in
making an evaluation into the nature of

the crime and/or offense committed by the statutory disqualification,
and where appropriate, conducts further background research, e.g.,
examining court decrees, in completing its review.
    Currently, pursuant to NYSE Rule 346(f), when a member organization
seeks approval to remain or become associated with a person subject to
any statutory disqualification, the Exchange imposes a $1,000 fee for
filing the notice pursuant to Commission Rule 19h-1 under the Act.\20\
In instances, where the Exchange is not required to make such a notice
filing (e.g., clerical and ministerial persons engaged in securities
activities) but nevertheless reviews the request, it currently assesses
no fee. Although no fees are currently charged for such reviews, the
Exchange, as noted below, nevertheless incurs expenses in connection
with such reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26674 (March 29,
1989), 54 FR 13801 (April 5, 1989) (SR-NYSE-88-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of costs associated with the development and
maintenance of a new system \21\ to track statutory disqualifications,
the increased cost of processing filings and the increased costs of
conducting examination oversight of statutory disqualifications, the
Exchange is proposing that a fee in the amount of $1,000 be charged in
instances where reviews are performed but a Rule 9h-1 filing is not
required.\22\ In instances where the Exchange is making the Rule 19h-1
filing, it is proposing that such fee be increased from $1,000 to
$1,500.\23\ The proposed fees of $1,000 and $1,500 are comparable to
those charged by NASD.\24\ The proposed fee increase would be effective
January 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In May 2005, Member Firm Regulation implemented its new
Statutory Disqualification/Special Supervision (SD/SS) System to
track statutory disqualifications.
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25383 (February 23,
1988), 53 FR 6046 (February 29, 1988) (SR-NASD-88-3)
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34897 (October 26,
1994), 59 FR 54648 (November 1, 1994) (SR-NASD-94-57).
    \24\ See supra notes 21 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Element Fee. NYSE Rule 345A provides in part, that no
member or member organization shall permit any registered person to
continue to, and no registered person shall continue to perform duties
as a registered person unless such person has complied with the
Regulatory Element \25\ continuing education requirements of NYSE Rule
345A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See NYSE Rule 345A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulatory Element requires each subject registered person to
complete a standardized, computer-based, interactive continuing
education program within 120 days of their second registration
anniversary date and every three years thereafter, or as otherwise
prescribed by the Exchange. The purpose of this requirement is to help
ensure that registered persons are kept up-to-date on regulatory,
compliance, and sales practice-related industry rules and issues. There
are three Regulatory Element programs: The S201 Supervisor Program, the
S106 Series 6 Program, and the S101 General Program for Series 7 and
all other registrations. Persons who fail to complete the Regulatory
Element within the prescribed time frame are deemed inactive and may
not perform, nor receive compensation for, functions requiring
registration.
    The Regulatory Element is a component of the Securities Industry
Continuing Education Program (``Program'') under NYSE Rule 345A. The
Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education
(``Council'')\26\ was organized in 1995 to facilitate cooperative
industry and regulatory coordination of the administration and future
development of the Program in keeping with applicable industry
regulations and changing industry needs. Its roles include recommending
and developing specific content and questions for the Regulatory
Element, defining minimum core curricula for the Firm Element component
of the Program, and developing and updating information about the
Program for industry-wide dissemination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Council currently consists of 20 individuals, 14 of
whom are securities industry professionals associated with NASD
member firms and six of whom represent self-regulatory organizations
(the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board,
NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Council's responsibility to maintain the Program on a
revenue neutral basis while maintaining adequate reserves for
unanticipated future expenditures.\27\ In December 2003, the Council
voted to reduce the Regulatory Element session fee from $65 to $60,
effective January 1, 2004, in order to reduce the reserves to a level
necessary to support current and expected programs and expenses. The
Council decided to review the reserve level and evaluate the Regulatory
Element session fee on an annual basis. The 2004 financial review and
evaluation produced no change in the Regulatory Element session fee. In
September 2005, the Council's annual financial review and evaluation
revealed that unless the Regulatory Element session fee were adjusted,
the Council's reserves were likely to be insufficient in 2006. The
reasons for the declining surplus are: (1) Lower than projected session
volume resulting in a significant decrease in actual revenue over
projected revenue; (2) higher delivery-related expenses beginning in
2006; and (3) costs associated with the rebuilding of
PROCTOR[supreg].\28\ At its September 2005 meeting, the Council voted
unanimously to increase the Regulatory Element session fee from $60 to
$75 effective January 1, 2006, in order to meet costs and maintain an
adequate reserve in 2006.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Regulatory Element session fee was initially set at $75
when NASD established the continuing education requirements in 1995.
The session fee was reduced in 1999 to $65 and again in 2004 to $60.
The proposed increase returns the Regulatory Element session fee to
its original 1995 level.
    \28\ PROCTOR[supreg] is an NASD technology system that supports
computer-based testing and training. The Regulatory Element program
uses PROCTOR[supreg] to package content, deliver, score and report
results, and maintain and generate statistical data related to the
Program.
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52947 (December 13,
2005), 70 FR 75517 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-132).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed implementation date is January 1, 2006.
2. Statutory Basis
    The NYSE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act,\30\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(4)\31\ of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members, and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    NYSE has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed
rule change.

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 \32\ and Rule

19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\33\ because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \34\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
December 23, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is
February 2, 2006. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period
within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change, as amended, under section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission considers the period to commence on February 2, 2006, the
date on which the NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-NYSE-2005-92 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-92. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2005-92 and should be submitted on or before March
7, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2010 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Permit No. MA0000833 Page 1 of 16 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act as amended, ( 33 U. S. C. § § 1251 et seq.; the " CWA"), and the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, as amended, ( M. G. L. Chap. 21, § § 26 53),

Exxon Company, U. S. A. Everett Terminal is authorized to discharge from a facility located at 52 Beacham Street Everett, MA 02149 to receiving water named Island End River to Mystic River in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein.

This permit shall become effective effective thirty ( 30) days from the date of issuance.

This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, five ( 5) years from the effective date.

This Permit supersedes the permit issued on September 30, 1991.

This permit consists of 17 pages in Part I including effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, Attachments A through C, etc., and 35 pages in Part II including General Conditions and Definitions.

Signed this day of _________________________ __________________________ Director Director Office of Ecosystem Protection Division of Watershed Management Environmental Protection Agency Department of Environmental Protection Boston, MA Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, MA Permit No. MA0000833 Page 2 of 16 PART I A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1. During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge treated effluent from outfall serial number 001A, Holding Tank 140 discharge. The discharge is comprised of stormwater, runoff from diked tank, non diked areas, maintenance activities, tank and piping hydrostatic tests, the former effluent pond, marine containment facility, groundwater infiltration, treated tank bottom drawoff, and truck washing, to Island End River. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below.

Effluent Characteristic Units Discharge Limitation Monitoring Requirement Average Monthly7 Average Weekly Maximum Daily8 Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow4 MGD Report  Report Continuous Meter Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) mg/ l 30 100 1/ Month3 Grab Oil and Grease mg/ l 15 1/ Month3 Grab Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs)

Single Chemical Sum of all PAH's present ng/ l2 ng/ l2 31 31 1/ Month3 1/ Month3 Grab Grab Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes ( total 3 isomers) ug/ l ug/ l ug/ l ug/ l 40 Report Report Report 1/ Month3 1/ Month3 1/ Month3 1/ Month3 Grab Grab Grab Grab LC 50 5,6 %   > 50 2/ year Grab Permit No. MA0000833 Page 3 of 16 PART I EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. During the period beginning the effective date and lasting through expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge treated effluent from outfall serial number 001B, Tank 140 By Pass. The discharge is comprised of stormwater, runoff from diked tank, non diked areas, maintenance activities, tank and piping hydrostatic tests, the former effluent pond, marine facility containment, groundwater infiltration, treated tank bottom drawoff, and truck washing, to Island End River. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below This discharge is only authorized when the flow to the oil/ water separator exceeds 3000 gpm. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below.

Effluent Characteristic Units Discharge Limitation Monitoring Requirement Average Monthly7 Average Weekly Maximum Daily8 Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow4 MGD Report  Report Continuous Recorder Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) mg/ l 30 100 Each Discharge Grab Oil and Grease mg/ l 15 Each Discharge Grab Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs) Single Chemical Sum of all PAH's present ng/ l2 ng/ l2 31 31 Each Discharge Each Discharge Grab Grab Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes ( total 3 isomers) ug/ l ug/ l ug/ l ug/ l 40 Report Report Report Each Discharge Each Discharge Each Discharge Each Discharge Grab Grab Grab Grab LC 50 5,6 %   > 50 2/ year Grab Permit No. MA0000833 Page 4 of 16 Footnotes:

1. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements for outfall 001B, Tank By Pass, specified above shall be taken before the by pass flow discharges into the wet well.

2. ng/ l stands for nanograms per liter. See Part I. A. 3. p. for the limit at which compliance/ noncompliance is based, see Part I. A. 3 q. for sampling details.

3. Sample frequency of once per month is defined as a sampling of one ( 1) significant rainstorm in each calendar month.

4. See Part I. A. 5. for flow rate control requirements.

5. The LC 50 is the concentration of effluent which causes mortality to 50% of the test organisms. Therefore, a > 50% limit means that a sample of 50% effluent shall cause no more than a 50% mortality rate.

6. The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests two times per year for Outfall 001A in February and August for chemical analysis, and two times per year for Outfall 001B during a significant rainstorm event. The samples for both outfalls shall be analyzed in accordance with the protocol established in Attachment A. A 48 hour acute WET test will be performed on each sample using one specie, Mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis Bahia) according to the procedure in Attachment A Acute Toxicity Procedure and Protocol, dated September 1996. Results from the toxicity testing shall be submitted within 30 days after the sampling date with the routine Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs).

Acute WET testing is used to determine the effluent concentration, by volume, that is lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms within a prescribed period of time, for this permit, 48 hours or less. Death is the effected measure. Effluent toxicity measured is expressed as the median lethal concentration, in percent effluent by volume, or LC 50.

After submitting 4 consecutive satisfactory toxicity test results for each outfall ( Outfall 001A, Outfall 001B and the Tank Bottom Drawoffs), the permittee may request a reduction in the frequency of required toxicity testing. The permittee is required to continue testing at the frequency specified in the permit until notice is received by certified mail from EPA that the whole effluent testing requirement has been changed.

7. Average monthly discharge limitation as defined in 40 CFR Part 122.2 is the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. The measurement frequency required for each pollutant is the minimum number of measurements which must be taken during the specified period. If additional measurements are taken in accordance with the monitoring Permit No. MA0000833 Page 5 of 16 requirements ( i. e. proper sample type, analyzed using approved methods) these results must be reported ( see General Requirements Section D. 1. d.( 2)). Where the permit requires once per month sampling, and maximum daily limits, the permittee should consider performing additional representative samples during the month to allow for effluent variability.

8. Maximum daily discharge as defined in 40 CFR Part 122.2 means the highest allowable daily discharge.

Part I. A. ( Continued)

3 a. The discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality standards of the receiving waters.

b. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam other than in trace amounts.

c. The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5 at any time, unless these values are exceeded due to natural causes or as a result of the approved treatment processes.

d. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements for outfall 001A, Holding Tank 140, specified above shall be taken at a representative location before mixing with any other stream.

e. The discharge shall not cause objectionable discoloration of the receiving waters.

f. The effluent shall contain neither a visible oil sheen, foam, nor floating solids at any time.

g. As listed in 40 CFR Part 136, method 610 PAHs , see Attachment B for PAH listing.

h. The discharge shall not contain materials in concentrations or combinations which are hazardous or toxic to human health, aquatic life of the receiving surface waters or which would impair the uses designated by its classification.

i. The discharge shall not impart color, taste, turbidity, toxicity, radioactivity or other properties which cause those waters to be unsuitable for the designated uses and characteristics ascribed to their use.

j. Notwithstanding specific conditions of this permit, the effluent must not lower the quality of any classified body of water below such classification, or lower the existing quality of any body of water if the existing quality is higher than the classification.

k. There shall be no discharge of either untreated tank bottom drawoffs or ship barge/ bilge Permit No. MA0000833 Page 6 of 16 water alone or in combination with other wastewater unless specifically approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP). The permittee must demonstrate that the proposed treated tank bottom drawoffs meet a Whole Effluent Toxicity ( WET) LC 50, for Mysid Shrimp, limit of 100% effluent as well as all the chemical and physical effluent limitations for Outfall 001.

l. Chemicals ( i. e. disinfecting agents, detergents, emulsifiers, etc.), bioremedial agents including microbes shall not be added to the collection and treatment systems without prior approval by EPA and the DEP to prevent hydrocarbon and/ or particulate matter carryover into the Island End River.

m. The bypass of storm water run off, wash water, or water used at the facility is prohibited, except during naturally occurring precipitation from severe weather incidents such as a hurricane. Each bypass shall be reported in the appropriate monthly DMR, indicating the estimated duration of the bypass.

n. EPA may modify this permit in accordance with EPA regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) § 122.62 and § 122.63 to incorporate more stringent effluent limitations, increase the frequency of analyses, or impose additional sampling and analytical requirements.

o. The appearance of any size sheen attributable to the discharge from the Everett terminal shall be reported immediately by the permittee to the appropriate U. S. Coast Guard Officer in accordance with Section 311 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). This requirement is separate and distinct from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit requirements.

p. Compliance/ non compliance for PAHs will be based on the Minimum Level ( ML). ML is defined as the level at which the entire analytical system gives recognizable mass spectra and acceptable calibration points. This level corresponds to the lower points at which the calibration curve is determined based on analysis for the pollutant of concern in reagent water. It has been determined that the ML for each of the PAHs listed in Attachment C of the fact sheet is 10 ug/ l. The ML for each PAHs will be 10 ug/ l. The sum of all 16 PAHs must not exceed 50 ug/ l. Neither the designated ML or the sum of all 16 PAHs can be changed except for a major modification.

q. Discharge 001  monitoring for PAHs, BETX ( benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes), will be done in accordance with the following protocol;

( 1). A grab sample shall be taken during each storm event within the first hour after the storm event has started or after diked area pump out has started. A negative Discharge Monitoring Report shall be submitted for each month that there is not a Permit No. MA0000833 Page 7 of 16 storm event and subsequently no storm water discharge.

( 2). The whole effluent toxicity test ( WET) sample will be a portion of the sample taken in the first hour of the storm event and the analysis shall be in accordance with Attachment A. The WET samples will be taken during the months of March, and September.

( 3). During dry weather flow periods, the permittee is required to sample at least once per month treated effluent from Tank 140 which does not include stormwater runoff The permittee shall take samples of Tank 140 by pass discharge each time there is a significant rainstorm event and report it in accordance with conditions established in part I. A. 2.

r. Laboratory Protocol ( 1). The quantitative methodology used for the PAH analysis must be capable of achieving a detection limit of less than or equal to 10 ug/ l. The analysis for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene must achieve a detection limit of equal to or less than 2.5 ug/ l.

( 2). The permittee shall provide a copy of the laboratory data sheets for each PAH and biological analysis giving test methods and the detection limit for each compound. Whenever possible, the analysis for BETX, PAHs and biological tests shall be from a split sample or separate samples taken in rapid sequence. BETX compounds can be analyzed using EPA's Method 602 with the addition of a xylene standard. The instrument calibration and the amount of quality control performed will be the same as for the other BETX compounds.

( 3). The permittee shall notify EPA and the State with any proposed hydrostatic test water discharges. At a minimum, six ( 6) representative samples shall be taken of the hydrostatic test water: one ( 1) grab sample of the influent; three ( 3) grab samples of the hydrostatic test water prior to discharge ( in process); and two ( 2) serial grab samples of the effluent, which after treatment through the O/ W separator is discharged to the receiving waters.

The influent grab sample shall be taken approximately midway through the fill segment of the hydrostatic test procedure.

The three ( 3) grab in process samples which are representative of the hydrostatic test water after depressurization shall be analyzed and results evaluated prior to discharge through the conveyance and discharge systems. The hydrostatic test water shall only be discharged if such analysis indicates that after appropriate management and treatment, all water quality standards must be met. Permit No. MA0000833 Page 8 of 16 The first of the serial grab samples shall be taken midway through the discharge, and the final sample shall be taken at the end of the discharge. These effluent samples are required to document the effluent limits have been met at the point of discharge. All these samples should provide adequate characterization of the influent, in process, and effluent hydrostatic test water.

These influent, in process, and effluent samples shall be analyzed for the following parameters:

a. Total Suspended Solids ( TSS) b. Oil and Grease ( O/ G) c. Total Iron d. Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) e. Dissolved Oxyen ( DO)

The hydrostatic test water released from the tank ( s), after treatment through the O/ W separator, must satisfy all the effluent limitations and conditions of the NPDES permit. The surface of the O/ W separator should be routinely observed to determine if there is any detectable increase in the separated oil layer to prevent inadvertent hydrocarbons released to the receiving water.

The permittee may initiate the treatment of the hydrostatic test water in accordance with proposed procedures when these procedures have been approved ( either written or verbal) by EPA and DEP. Any changes to these procedures must be approved by EPA and DEP prior to implementation.

Should any NPDES permit discharge parameter be exceeded, the hydrostatic test water transfer shall be halted immediately followed by notification to EPA and DEP of the exceedence.

After the transfer project has been completed, the permittee shall submit a letter/ report to EPA and the DEP within 30 days of the transfer. The report shall contain the dates of the hydrostatic test transfer, the volume of hydrostatic test water transferred, the analytically determined values of the discharge parameters and a summary of the results of the transfer.

4. All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining and silvicultural dischargers must notify the Director as soon as they know or have reason to believe:

a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following " notification levels:" Permit No. MA0000833 Page 9 of 16 ( 1) One hundred micrograms per liter ( 100 ug/ l);

( 2) Two hundred micrograms per liter ( 200 ug/ l) for acrolein and acrylonitrite; five hundred micrograms per liter ( 500 ug/ l) for 2,4 dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter ( 1 mg/ l) for antimony;

( 3) Five ( 5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 C. F. R. § 122.21( g)( 7); or ( 4) Any other notification level established by the Director in accordance with 40 C. F. R. § 122.44( f).

b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a nonroutine or infrequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following " notification levels:"

( 1) Five hundred micrograms per liter ( 500 ug/ l);

( 2) One milligram per liter ( 1 mg/ l) for antimony;

( 3) Ten ( 10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 C. F. R. § 122.21( g)( 7).

( 4) Any other notification level established by the Director in accordance with 40 C. F. R. § 122.44( f).

c. That they have begun or expect to begin to use or manufacture as an intermediate or final product or byproduct any toxic pollutant which was not reported in the permit application.

5. Oil/ Water ( O/ W) Separator Flow Control The permittee shall control the water flow rate through an oil/ water separation system to the optimum design flow via a continuous recording flow meter. On the effective date of the permit, using continuous recording flow meters, the permittee shall manually control the separator. Alternatively, the permittee may request that the Regional Administrator accept substitution of an alternate method of control which may include the following:

a. A flow reduction or constriction device to prevent the flow through each separator from ever exceeding the maximum design flow rate or,

b. by demonstrating to EPA and MADEP that the operational procedures are sufficiently clear and rigid that operator ( s) will not exceed the maximum design Permit No. MA0000833 Page 10 of 16 flow rate of each O/ W separator by concurrently draining more diked or undiked areas than prescribed in the procedures or,

c. by any other means of control that prevents the flow from exceeding the flow from the exceeding the maximum design flow rate of each O/ W separator.

The permittee shall conduct periodic compliance evaluations of the methods of control for regulating water flow rate and treating and managing storm water through the O/ W separators, as described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements.

6. Toxics Control a. The permittee shall not discharge any pollutant or combination of pollutants in toxic amounts.

b. Any toxic components of the effluent shall not result in any demonstrable harm to aquatic life or violate any state or federal water quality standard which has been or may be promulgated. Upon promulgation of any such standard, this permit may be revised or amended in accordance with such standards.

7. Numerical Effluent Limitations for Toxicants EPA or DEP may use the results of the toxicity tests and chemical analyses conducted pursuant to this permit, as well as national water quality criteria developed pursuant to Section 304( a)( 1) of the Clean Water Act( CWA), state water quality criteria, and any other appropriate information or data, to develop numerical effluent limitations for any pollutants, including but not limited to those pollutants listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 122.

B. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLAN The permittee shall update and implement the existing Best Management Practices ( BMP) plan to achieve the stated objectives and which conforms to the following requirements:

1. General Conditions a. General Objectives The objectives of the BMP plan are to minimize the potential for violations of terms of the permit; to protect the designated water uses of the surrounding surface water bodies, and to mitigate pollution from material storage areas, in plant transfer, process and material handling areas, loading and unloading operations, plant site runoff and accidental spills. Both wet weather and dry weather conditions are to be considered in the BMP plan. Permit No. MA0000833 Page 11 of 16 b. Implementation An updated BMP plan shall be developed within 90 days of the effective date of the permit and available to EPA and the State upon request. The permittee shall have on file a statement that certifies that the BMP plan has been updated and it shall be implemented in accordance with its schedule and requirements. This certification shall be signed in accordance with NPDES General Requirements, Part II. D. 2 Implementation of all aspects of the plan shall commence no later that 12 months after the effective date of the permit. ( see part I. B. 3 Implementation Schedule below) unless a later date is approved in writing by the Regional Administrator and the Director.

c. General Requirements The BMP plan shall:

( 1) Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any necessary plot plans, drawings, or maps.

( 2) Establish specific objectives for the control of toxic and hazardous pollutants.

( a) Each facility component or system will be examined for its potential for causing a release of significant amounts of toxic and hazardous pollutants to surface waters due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena such as precipitation, etc.

Locations at which bypasses of the treatment systems may occur as well as projected conditions under which a bypass may be necessary will be submitted.

( b) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure ( e. g. a tank overflow or leakage), natural phenomena ( e. g., precipitation), or other circumstances to result in significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants reaching surface waters, the plan shall include a prediction of the direction, rate of flow and total quantity of toxic or hazardous pollutants which could be discharged, from the facility as a result of each condition or circumstances.

( 3) Establish specific best management practices to meet the objectives identified under Part I. B. 1. c.( 2) of this section, addressing each component of system capable of causing a release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to surface waters. Examples are: specific practices to minimize and/ or control the use of bypasses shall be identified, maximum flow rate control through the o/ w separator, etc.

( 4) Include any special conditions established in accordance with Part I. B. 2 Specific Conditions , below. Permit No. MA0000833 Page 12 of 16 ( 5) Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the terminal manager.

( d) Specific Requirements The plan shall be consistent with the general guidance contained in the publication entitled " NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Documents" and shall consider the following base line BMP's as a minimum:

( 1) BMP Committee ( 2) Report BMP Incidents ( 3) Risk Identification and Assessment ( 4) Employee Training ( 5) Inspections and Records ( 6) Preventive Maintenance ( 7) Good Housekeeping ( 8) Material Compatibility ( 9) Security e. SPCC Plans and Standard Company Operational Procedures The BMP plan may reflect requirements for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC) plans under Section 311 of the Act and 40 CFR Part 112, and may incorporate any part of such plans into the BMP plan by reference. Any promulgated Standard Company Operational procedures may be incorporated into the BMP plan by reference. Copies of both the SPCC plan and operational procedures will be attached to the BMP plan for convenience in referencing the appropriate sections.

f. Hazardous Water Management The permittee shall assure the proper management of solid and hazardous waste in accordance with regulations promulgated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) of 1978 ( 40 U. S. C. 6901 et seq), or amendments thereto. Management practices required under RCRA regulation shall be referenced in the BMP plan.

g. Documentation The permittee shall maintain a description of the BMP plan at the facility and shall make the plan available to the Regional Administrator and the Director upon request.

h. BMP Plan Modification The permittee shall submit to the Regional Administrator and the Director an amended Permit No. MA0000833 Page 13 of 16 BMP plan within 30 days of a change in the physical facility or a change in the operational procedures of the facility which materially increases the potential for the ancillary activities to result in a discharge of significant amounts of hazardous or toxic pollutants.

i. Modification for Ineffectiveness If the BMP proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objective of preventing the release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to surface waters and the specific objectives and requirements under under Part I. B. 2. herein, the permit and/ or the BMP plan shall be subject to modification ( 40 CFR § 122.64 and § 122.63) to incorporate revised BMP requirements.

2. Specific Conditions a. All surface runoff from process or work areas at the facility shall be treated or contained and diverted to the final treatment system. Process or work areas are defined for the permit as all those areas subject to spills and leaks of raw materials or products containing toxic or hazardous substances, i. e. diked areas, docks, loading and unloading areas, yard areas, etc.

( 1) Treatment, at a minimum, shall consist of an efficiently operated o/ w separator.

( 2) The final treatment system must be capable of treating and/ or containing in a holding basin a total volume of surface runoff, from process areas defined in Part I. B. 2. a above, produced by 24 hour rainfall occurring with a frequency of once in 10 years.

The permittee shall provide detailed design optimum and maximum oil and water flow rates for the o/ w separator and other treatment equipment now in use or any proposed treatment equipment for Outfall 001 ( if an o/ w separator is used). This design criteria shall include but not be limited to sketches of the equipment, the design water flow capacity, the design oil recovery rate, the design specific gravities of the oil and water, design oil droplet size, and design operating temperature range.

The contents of any diked area or holding basin shall be released to the final treatment system subject to Specific Condition I. B. 2. a.( 3) immediately below.

( 3) The release of runoff from any diked area or holding basin shall be controlled so that this discharge alone or in combination with all other wastewaters does not exceed the optimum design flow rate for the o/ w separator or cause violations of effluent limitations specified in Parts I. A. 1, and I. A. 2, for outfalls 001. Note: The tank bottoms drawoffs and bilge water shall conform to the requirements in Part Permit No. MA0000833 Page 14 of 16 I. A. 3. h before release.

b. All storm water runoff accumulated in the tank diked areas shall be discharged, only if, for each discharge event, a visual inspection is made of the diked areas to ensure that the treatment system can handle the released water and any apparent pollutant load.

c. The existing capability to divert storm water drainage bypassing Outfall 001, shall be subject to Parts I. B. 2. a. and Parts I. B. 2. b.

d. The BMP plan shall specifically address the adequacy of containment of leaks and spills in the storage areas and truck loading area. Adequate containment must exist at these locations so as to prevent untreated discharges from reaching any surface water.

e. A schedule for routinely monitoring and cleaning the o/ w separators for both sludge layer shall be specified in the BMP plan. In addition, the BMP plan shall establish procedures for insuring compliance with part I. B. 1 General Conditions and part I. B. 2. Specific Conditions during such cleaning or maintenance periods.

f. The disposal procedures for tank bottom sludge, o/ w separator sediment, and any washdown waters containing detergents, dispersants, emulsifiers, etc. will be addressed in the BMP plan.

3. Implementation Schedule a. Construction of any facilities shall begin within 9 months of the effective date of the permit.

b. All construction required by the BMP plan and these Specific Conditions shall be completed and the facilities placed in operation within 24 months of the effective date of the permit or at a later date as may be approved by the Regional Administrator and the Director.

c. All aspects of the BMP plan which do not require construction shall be implemented on the submittal date of the BMP plan ( 90 days after the effective date of the permits). All other requirements and conditions shall be implemented upon completion of the respective construction, or within 24 months of the effective date of the permit or at a later date as may be approved by the Regional Administrator and the Director.

d. The EPA and the State may comment on the BMP plan no later than 9 months from the effective date of the permit. If EPA or the State submit comments, the permittee will be given a written explanation of the exact nature of any problems and a reasonable period of time ( usually not to exceed 90 days) to resubmit a modified BMP plan addressing those concerns. Permit No. MA0000833 Page 15 of 16 4. BMP Reporting Requirements a. The permittee shall prepare and submit an annual BMP report to the EPA and the DEP by November 15. This report shall address the adequacy of the BMP plan in achieving the general objective of preventing the release of significant amounts of toxic or hazardous pollutants to surface waters and the specific objectives and requirements under Parts I. B.( 1)( c), and ( d). In addition it shall also include :

( 1) A list of fuels, additives and chemicals stored in bulk at the facility.

( 2) Estimate the volume of tank bottom drawoffs and bilge water disposed by facility during the previous reporting period and disposition of those tank bottom drawoffs and bilge water.

( 3) A list of any changes in activities at the facility such as but not limited to changes in the product line, storm water collection system, treatment and discharge system, and significant physical facility changes such as the number of storage tanks used, the size of the land parcel, new docks new loading racks, etc.

C. UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES The permittee is authorized to discharge only in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit and only from those outfalls listed in Part I A. 1. and 2. of this permit. Discharges of wastewater from any other point source are not authorized and shall be reported in accordance with Section D. 1. e. ( 1) of the General Requirements of this permit ( Twenty four hour reporting).

D. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be summarized for each month and reported on separate Discharge Monitoring Report Form( s) postmarked no later than the 15th day of the month following the effective date of the permit.

Signed and dated originals of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Director and the State at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency Water Technical Unit ( SEW) P. O. Box 8127 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Permit No. MA0000833 Page 16 of 16 The State Agency address for all reports except toxicity tests is:

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office 205A Lowell Street Wilmington, MA 01887 Signed and dated DMRs, and toxicity test reports required by this permit shall be submitted to the State at:

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management Surface Water Discharge Permit Program 627 Main Street, 2nd Floor Worcester, Massachusetts 01608 E. STATE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. This Discharge Permit is issued jointly by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) under Federal and State law, respectively. As such, all the terms and conditions of this permit are hereby incorporated into and constitute a discharge permit issued by the Commissioner of the MA DEP pursuant to M. G. L. Chap. 21, § 43.

2. Each Agency shall have the independent right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Permit. Any modification, suspension or revocation of this Permit shall be effective only with respect to the Agency taking such action, and shall not affect the validity or status of this Permit as issued by the other Agency, unless and until each Agency has concurred in writing with such modification, suspension or revocation. In the event any portion of this Permit is declared, invalid, illegal or otherwise issued in violation of State law such permit shall remain in full force and effect under Federal law as a NPDES Permit issued by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In the event this Permit is declared invalid, illegal or otherwise issued in violation of Federal law, this Permit shall remain in full force and effect under State law as a Permit issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34836-34837]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60284; File No. SR-CHX-2009-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Article 20, Rule 1 Relating to the Declaration of Trading Halts on the
Exchange

July 10, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 7, 2009, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. CHX has filed this
proposal pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4 (f)(6) \3\ and requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative waiting period
contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\4\ If such waiver is
granted by the Commission, this rule proposal, which is effective upon
filing with the Commission, shall become immediately operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend Article 20, Rule 1 relating to the
declaration of Trading Halts on the Exchange. The text of this proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (http://
www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify its rules relating to the
declaration of Trading Halts on the Exchange. Currently, Article 20,
Rule 1 requires two Senior Officers of the Exchange to agree to suspend
or restart trading. ``Senior Officers'' has traditionally been defined
by the Exchange as a person with the title of Senior Vice President or
above. To ensure that it has proper coverage at all times, the Exchange
proposes to increase the pool of persons with authority to declare or
lift a trading halt to all officers of the Exchange designated by the
CEO to have such authority. This action would provide sufficient
flexibility to ensure that the Exchange always has adequate personnel
available to suspend or reinstate trading on the Exchange when
necessary. The requirement that the CEO designate the officers with
such authority provides assurance that those officers have sufficient
experience, judgment and knowledge to make those decisions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\5\ and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\6\ in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transaction in
securities, to remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest by allowing CHX to amend Article 20, Rule 1 relating to the
declaration of Trading Halts on the Exchange to ensure that the
Exchange always has adequate personnel available to suspend or
reinstate trading on the Exchange when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an Exchange is required
to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\9\
However, Rule 19b-

4(f)(6) \10\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. CHX has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is
substantially similar to a rule change proposed by NYSE Arca, Inc.\11\
The Exchange also believes that it is important to implement this rule
change as soon as practicable to ensure that the Exchange has adequate
personnel available to suspend or reinstate trading on the Exchange
when necessary. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it should further the Exchange's ability to
suspend or reinstate trading on the Exchange when necessary in the
public interest. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposal to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.13; see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR 55225
(November 1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25).
    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-CHX-2009-05 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-CHX-2009-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2009-05 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17010 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55456-55457]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19851]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9028-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 08/08/2016 Through 08/12/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20160186, Final, USFWS, NAT, National Wildlife Refuge System
Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,

Review Period Ends: 09/19/2016, Contact: Scott Covington<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20160187, Draft, Caltrans, CA, Northwest SR-138 Corridor,
Comment Period Ends: 10/03/2016, Contact: Natalie Hill<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160168, Draft, NSA, MD, East Campus Integration Program,
Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2016, Contact: Jeffrey Williams 301-688-
2970.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/22/2016; Correct Comment Period
from 9/05/2016 to 09/06/2016.

    Dated: August 16, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-19851 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P