[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54947-54952]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17422]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332; FRL-10013-24-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) Second Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair
County) Area

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
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the
Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the
``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania area
(Altoona Area). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0332 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 27, 2020, DEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Altoona Area through August 1, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A.

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
the Altoona Area, which comprises Blair County, Pennsylvania, as
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can

submit a request to EPA to redesignate the area to attainment. Areas
that have been redesignated by EPA from nonattainment to attainment are
referred to as ``maintenance areas.'' One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the standard for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance as well as contingency measures as
necessary to assure that violations of the standard will be promptly
corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41906 effective August 1, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from DEP for
the Altoona Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the
eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state
must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the
Altoona Area) that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo \5\
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent
guidance memos describing the conditions for allowing the submittal of
less rigorous ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that the
requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that the
area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or in this case below
0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Accordingly, on February 27, 2020, DEP
submitted an LMP for the Altoona Area, following EPA's LMP guidance and
demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through
August 1, 2027, i.e., through the entire 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    DEP's February 27, 2020 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In
the first maintenance plan for the Altoona Area, DEP used 2004 for the
attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of the years in the
2003-2005 three-year period when the area first attained the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\8\ The Altoona Area continued to monitor attainment of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the emissions inventory from 2014
represents emissions levels conducive to continued attainment (i.e.,
maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, DEP is using 2014 as representing
attainment level emissions for its second maintenance plan.
Pennsylvania used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA's 2014 version 7.0
modeling platform as the basis for the 2014 inventory presented in
Table 1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information, see EPA's June 7, 2007 notice
proposing to redesignate the Altoona Area to attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS (72 FR 31495).
    \9\ For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.

 Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the Altoona
                                  Area
                               (Tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      NOX         VOC
                 Source category                   emissions   emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................        2.51        0.90
Nonpoint........................................        3.73        6.96
Onroad..........................................        4.49        2.27
Nonroad.........................................        0.77        0.77
                                                 -----------------------
    Total.......................................       11.50       11.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Table 1 is based on the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) version 2.\10\ The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission

source categories: Stationary (point) sources, stationary nonpoint
(area) sources, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile sources. Point
sources are stationary sources that have the potential to emit (PTE)
more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50 tpy of
NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating permit.
Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported to DEP.
Examples of point sources include kraft mills, electrical generating
units (EGUs), and pharmaceutical factories. Nonpoint sources include
emissions from equipment, operations, and activities that are numerous
and in total have significant emissions. Examples include emissions
from commercial and consumer products, portable fuel containers, home
heating, repair and refinishing operations, and crematories. The onroad
emissions sector includes emissions from engines used primarily to
propel equipment on highways and other roads, including passenger
vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The nonroad
emissions sector includes emissions from engines that are not primarily
used to propel transportation equipment, such as generators, forklifts,
and marine pleasure craft. EPA reviewed the emissions inventory
submitted by DEP and proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory is
acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value or
``DV'') at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 ``Resource Document
for 1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States
Developing Maintenance Plans'' (2018 Resource Document),\11\ EPA
believes that if the most recent DV for the area is well below the
NAAQS (e.g. below 85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), the section
175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided that Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control measures
already in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place through
the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a showing
consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to
assure maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS, DEP provided 3-year DVs for the Altoona Area from
2007 to 2018. This includes DVs for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009,
2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-
2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018, which are shown in Table 2.\12\ In
addition, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient air quality
monitoring data for ozone in the Altoona Area, as submitted by
Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The most
recent DV (i.e. 2017-2019) is also shown in Table 2.\13\ There is one
ambient air quality monitor located in the Altoona Area (AQS Site ID
42-013-0801).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also Table II-2 of DEP's February 27, 2020 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332.
    \13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

                                           Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppm) for the Altoona Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011   2010-2012   2011-2013   2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017  2016-2018  2017-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   0.073       0.072       0.070       0.070       0.070       0.075       0.073       0.068       0.064       0.063       0.064          X      0.063
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Table 2, DVs in the Altoona Area have been well
below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2012-2014
design value. The most recent DV (i.e. 2017-2019) in the Altoona Area
is 0.063 ppm, which is well below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA
notes that the DV for 2016-2018 for Altoona is represented by an ``X''
in Table 2 because the 2016-2018 DV does not meet the completeness
criteria of 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, which require that the three-
year average data capture rate be at least 90%.\14\ The three-year
average data capture for the Altoona Area monitor for the 2016-2018
monitoring season was 89%. Therefore, the 2016-2018 DV, calculated as
0.063 ppm, is invalid. According to DEP's February 27, 2020 submittal,
this was due to UV lamp instability issues at the Blair County Monitor
(AQS Site ID 42-013-0801). The issue was resolved and the monitor
continues to record concentrations that are well below the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\15\ As Table 2 shows, DVs have remained below 85% of the 1997
ozone NAAQS since 2012-2014. Additionally, the previous DV (2015-2017)
and the subsequent DV (2017-2019) were 0.064 ppm and 0.063 ppm,
respectively. Furthermore, in 2017, 2018, and 2019, there were zero
instances in which the Blair County monitor recorded a highest daily
ambient ozone concentration in excess of 0.084 ppm.\16\ Therefore, EPA
has a high level of confidence that there is very little likelihood of
future violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Altoona area, and that
Pennsylvania's February 27, 2020 submittal is adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, section 2.3(b) states that
comparison to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is based on three consecutive,
complete calendar years of air quality monitoring data. ``This
requirement is met for the three-year period at a monitoring site if
daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations are available for at
least 90%, on average, of the days during the designated ozone
monitoring season, with a minimum data completeness in any one year
of at least 75% of the designated sampling days.''
    \15\ See FN1 on Page 2 of DEP's LMP.
    \16\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends.
According to EPA's 2018 Resource Document, several kinds of analyses
can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing. One approach
is to take

the most recent DV for the area and add the maximum design value
increase (over one or more consecutive years) that has been observed in
the area over the past several years. A sum that does not exceed the
level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS may be a good indicator of expected
continued attainment. As shown in Table 2 in this document, the largest
increases in DVs from 2007 to 2019 was 0.005 ppm, which occurred
between the 2009-2011 (0.070 ppm) and 2010-2012 (0.075 ppm) DVs. Adding
0.005 ppm to the most recent DV of 0.063 ppm results in 0.068 ppm, a
sum that is still below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    The Altoona Area has maintained air quality levels well below the
1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained the NAAQS in 2005.\17\
Additional supporting information that the area is expected to continue
to maintain the standard can be found in projections of future year DVs
that EPA recently completed to assist states with the development of
interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those
projections, made for the year 2023, show that the DV for the Altoona
Area is expected to be 0.063 ppm.\18\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
determine that future violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Altoona
Area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As explained in EPA's June 7, 2007 notice proposing to
redesignate the Altoona Area as attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
(72 FR 31495), the 2003-2005 DV for the Altoona County Area was
0.077 ppm.
    \18\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-updated-2023-projected-ozone-design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the
February 27, 2020 submittal, DEP commits to continue to operate their
air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. DEP also
commits to track the attainment status of the Altoona Area for the 1997
ozone NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions data during
the second maintenance period. This includes an annual evaluation of
vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and stationary source emissions data
compared to the assumptions included in the LMP. DEP also states that
it will evaluate the periodic (i.e. every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA's Air Emission Reporting Requirements
(40 CFR part 51, subpart A). Based on these evaluations, DEP will
consider whether any further emission control measures should be
implemented for the Altoona Area. EPA has analyzed the commitments in
DEP's submittal and is proposing to determine that they meet the
requirements for continued air quality monitoring and verification of
continued attainment.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
    DEP's February 27, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the Altoona Area. In the event that the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentration at the Blair County monitor exceeds 84 ppb for two
consecutive years, but prior to an actual violation of the NAAQS, DEP
will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should
be implemented that may prevent a violation of the NAAQS.\19\ After
analyzing the conditions causing the excessive ozone levels, evaluating
the effectiveness of potential corrective measures, and considering the
potential effects of federal, state, and local measures that have been
adopted but not yet implemented, DEP will begin the process of
implementing selected measures so that they can be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable following a violation of the NAAQS. In the
event of a violation, DEP commits to adopting additional emission
reduction measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with
the schedule included in the contingency plan as well as the CAA and
applicable Pennsylvania statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year DV
exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DEP will use the following criteria when considering additional
emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Altoona County Area: (1) Air quality analysis
indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which
emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the
area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs,
equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures DEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the Altoona Area include, but are not limited
to, those summarized in Table 3. If additional emission reductions are
necessary, DEP commits to adopt additional emission reduction measures
to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

   Table 3--Altoona Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
    Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
     correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
     engines).
    Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
     fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
    Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
    Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
     warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
    Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
     commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
    Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g. biodiesel) for home
     heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \20\

    Additional control on consumer products.\21\
    Additional controls on portable fuel containers.\22\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, including schedules for adopting potential land use planning
strategies not listed in Table 3, which are summarized in Tables 4 and
5, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ These regulatory measures were considered potential cost-
effective and timely control strategies by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) as well as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. The OTC
is a multi-state organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic, including the development of model rules that member
states may adopt. OTC member states include: Connecticut, Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the OTC, visit
https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the model rules developed by
the OTC, including those for consumer products and portable fuel
containers, visit https://otcair.org/document.asp?fview=modelrules.
    \21\ Pennsylvania's existing controls on consumer products are
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598).
This contingency measure includes the adoption of additional
controls on consumer products such as VOC limits for adhesive
removers.
    \22\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR 59 subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions From New
and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.

    Table 4--Implementation Schedule for Altoona Area Non-Regulatory
                          Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Time after triggering event                    Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 months...............  DEP will identify stakeholders for
                                 potential non-regulatory measures for
                                 further development.
Within 3 months...............  If funding is necessary, DEP will
                                 identify potential sources of funding
                                 and the timeframe for when funds would
                                 be available.
Within 6 months...............  Work with the relevant planning
                                 commission(s) to identify potential
                                 land use planning strategies and
                                 projects with quantifiable and timely
                                 emission benefits. Work with the
                                 Pennsylvania Department of Community
                                 and Economic Development and other
                                 state agencies to assist these
                                 measures.
Within 9 months...............  If state loans or grants are required,
                                 DEP will enter into agreements with
                                 implementing organizations. DEP will
                                 also quantify projected emission
                                 benefits.
Within 12 months..............  DEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
Within 12-24 months...........  DEP will implement strategies and
                                 projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5--Implementation Schedule for Altoona Area Regulatory Contingency
                                Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Time after triggering event                    Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 month................  DEP will submit request to begin
                                 regulatory development process.
Within 3 months...............  Request will be reviewed by the Air
                                 Quality Technical Advisory Committee
                                 (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                 other advisory committees as
                                 appropriate.
Within 6 months...............  Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
                                 meeting/action.
Within 8 months...............  DEP will publish regulatory measure in
                                 the Pennsylvania Bulletin for comment
                                 as proposed rulemaking.
Within 10 months..............  DEP will hold a public hearing and
                                 comment period on proposed rulemaking.
Within 11 months..............  House and Senate Standing Committee and
                                 Independent Regulatory Review
                                 Commission (IRCC) comment on proposed
                                 rule.
Within 13 months..............  AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                 other committees will review responses
                                 to comment(s), if applicable, and the
                                 draft final rulemaking.
Within 16 months..............  EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months..............  The IRCC will take action on final
                                 rulemaking.
Within 18 months..............  Attorney General's review/action.
Within 19 months..............  DEP will publish the regulatory measure
                                 as a final rulemaking in the
                                 Pennsylvania Bulletin and submit to EPA
                                 as a SIP revision. The regulation will
                                 become effective upon publication in
                                 the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in DEP's
February 27, 2020 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA
section 175A(d). EPA notes that while six of the potential contingency
measures included in the Commonwealth's second maintenance plan are
non-regulatory, their inclusion among other measures is overall SIP-
strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's proposal to
find the LMP is fully approvable. EPA also finds that the submittal
acknowledges Pennsylvania's continuing requirement to implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the Altoona Area to attainment.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB)

contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40
CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that portion of
the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved
control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a
certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs, and projects. Specifically, for such
determination, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements
specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved,
they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114
and 93.115). The Altoona Area remains under the obligation to meet the
applicable conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of DEP's February 27, 2020 submittal indicates that it
meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements of
CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the Altoona Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing approval of
Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the Altoona Area, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 4, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-17422 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15283-15286]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05601]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94402; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect a
Modification to the Permitted Components of the Tracking Basket of the
Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF, and To Permit the Use of Custom Baskets
by the Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF, the Invesco US Large Cap Core
ETF, and the Invesco Real Assets ESG ETF

March 11, 2022.
    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 March 4, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
(i) permit the Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF (the ``Fund''), shares of
which are listed and traded on the Exchange under BZX Rule 14.11(m), to
include select securities from which a Fund's investments are selected
such as a broad-based market index (``Investment Universe'') in the
Fund's Tracking Basket, and (ii) permit the Fund and certain other
series of Tracking Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the
Exchange to use Custom Baskets.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange adopted BZX Rule 14.11(m) for the purpose of
permitting the listing and trading, or pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP''), of Tracking Fund Shares, which are securities
issued by an actively managed open-end management investment
company.\3\ Exchange Rule

14.11(m)(2)(A) requires the Exchange to file separate proposals under
Section 19(b) of the Act before listing and trading any series of
Tracking Fund Shares on the Exchange. Pursuant to this provision, the
Exchange submitted proposals to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of
Tracking Fund Shares of the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93273 (October 7,
2021), 86 FR 57237 (October 14, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-063) (Notice
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To List and
Trade Shares of Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF, a Series of Hartford
Funds Exchange-Traded Trust, Under Rule 14.11(m), Tracking Fund
Shares (the ``Original Filing'')). Rule 14.11(m)(3)(A) provides that
``[t]he term ``Tracking Fund Share'' means a security that (i)
represents an interest in an investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company'') organized as
an open-end management investment company, that invests in a
portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's
investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's
investment objectives and policies; (ii) is issued in a specified
aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a specified
Tracking Basket and/or a cash amount with a value equal to the next
determined net asset value; (iii) when aggregated in the same
specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request,
which holder will be paid a specified Tracking Basket and/or a cash
amount with a value equal to the next determined net asset value;
and (iv) the portfolio holdings for which are disclosed within at
least 60 days following the end of every fiscal quarter. Rule
14.11(m)(3)(E) provides that ``[t]he term ``Tracking Basket'' means
the identities and quantities of the securities and other assets
included in a basket that is designed to closely track the daily
performance of the Fund Portfolio, as provided in the exemptive
relief under the Investment Company Act of 1940 applicable to a
series of Tracking Fund Shares.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund is an actively-managed exchange-traded fund for which the
Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust (the ``Issuer'') submitted an
application for exemptive relief (the ``Application'') which was
granted under an exemptive order (the ``Exemptive Order'', and the
Exemptive Order together with the Application the ``Exemptive Relief'')
issued on August 5, 2021.\4\ The Fund's Application incorporated the
conditions and requirements to an exemptive order from the SEC under
the 1940 Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (the ``Reference Order'') \5\ to
Fidelity Management & Research Company and FMR Co., Inc., Fidelity
Beach Street Trust, and Fidelity Distributors Corporation (collectively
referred to as ``Fidelity''). Moreover, the relief in the Exemptive
Order incorporates by reference terms and conditions of the same relief
of the Reference Order, as that order may be amended from time to time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Investment Company Release No. 34324 (July 7, 2021) 86
FR 36839 (July 13, 2021) (the Application) and 34351 (August 5,
2021) (the Exemptive Order) (File No. 812-15232).
    \5\ See Investment Company Act Release No. 33683 (November 14,
2019), 84 FR 64140 (November 20, 2019) (the Fidelity notice of
application) and 33712 (December 10, 2019) (the Reference Order)
(File No. 812-14364).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Reference Order, funds operating under such
Reference Order are required to publish a basket of securities and cash
that, while different from the fund's portfolio, is designed to closely
track its daily performance (i.e., the Tracking Basket). Further, it
provided that the Tracking Basket will solely consist of a combination
of (i) select recently disclosed portfolio holdings (``Strategy
Components''); (ii) liquid U.S. exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') that
convey information about the types of instruments (that are not
otherwise fully represented by the Strategy Components) in which a fund
invests (``Representative ETFs''); and (iii) cash and cash equivalents.
    On August 5, 2021, the Reference Order, and by incorporation the
Exemptive Relief, was amended to, among other things, permit the Issuer
to include select securities from which a Fund's investments are
selected such as a broad-based market index (``Investment Universe'')
in the Fund's Tracking Basket.\6\ Based on this change, the Exchange is
submitting this proposal to permit the Fund to include select
securities from the Investment Universe in the Fund's Tracking Basket.
Such an amendment will allow the Fund to utilize such provision in
accordance with the amended Reference Order and its Exemptive Relief
and the Exchange is updating the listing rule for the Shares
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Investment Company Act Release No. 34326 (July 9, 2021)
86 FR 37391 (July 15, 2021) (the Fidelity notice of application to
amend the Reference Order) and 34350 (August 5, 2021) (the order
granting the amendment to the Reference Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Reference Order, the Fund and the Invesco US Large
Cap Core ETF and Invesco Real Assets ESG ETF \7\ (collectively, the
``Fidelity Model Funds'') create shares in return for a deposit by the
purchaser of, and redeem shares at a holder's request in return for, a
Tracking Basket or cash. Furthermore, the original filings to list and
trade shares of the Fidelity Model Funds provided that each of the
Fidelity Model Fund would create and redeem their shares using the
Tracking Basket or cash. The August 5, 2021 amendments to the Reference
Order allow the Fidelity Model Funds to create and redeem their shares
using cash, a Tracking Basket or a ``Custom Basket'', which is a
creation or redemption unit that differs from a fund's Tracking
Basket.\8\ Additionally, on September 28, 2021 the Commission approved
the Exchange's proposal to amend Exchange Rule 14.11(m) to provide for
the use of Custom Baskets consistent with each of the Fidelity Model
Funds respective exemptive relief.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Similar to the Fund, the exemptive relief provided Invesco
US Large Cap Core ETF and Invesco Real Assets ESG ETF incorporates
by reference the terms and conditions of the same relief of the
Reference Order, as that order may be amended from time to time. See
Investment Company Act Release No. 34041 (October 1, 2020) 85 FR
63325 (October 7, 2020) (the application for exemptive relief) and
34076 (October 27, 2020) (the exemptive order, together with the
application for exemptive relief referred to as the ``Invesco
Exemptive Relief'') (File No. 812-15141). Further, the shares of the
Invesco US Large Cap Core ETF and Invesco Real Assets ESG ETF are
listed and traded on the Exchange. See Securities and Exchange Act
No. 90686 (December 16, 2020) 85 FR 83657 (December 22, 2020) (SR-
CboeBZX-2020-090) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of a
proposed rule to list and trade shares of the Invesco Real Assets
ESG ETF and the Invesco US Large Cap Core ESG ETF, each a series of
the Invesco Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, under Rule
14.11(m) (Tracking Fund Shares)).
    \8\ Supra note 6.
    \9\ See Securities and Exchange Act No. 93147 (September 28,
2021) 86 FR 54772 (October 4, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-053) (Order
granting approval of a proposed rule to change to amend Rule
14.11(m) (Tracking Fund Shares) to provide the use of Custom Baskets
consistent with the exemptive relief issued pursuant to the
Investment Company Act of 1940 applicable to a series of Tracking
Fund Shares).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange is submitting this proposal to modify
representations made in the original filing of each Fidelity Model Fund
that provided that creation and redemption will occur using the
Tracking Basket or cash. Specifically, the proposal would permit the
Fidelity Model Funds to use a Custom Basket, in addition to a Tracking
Basket or cash, to create or redeem their shares in accordance with
their respective exemptive relief and amended Exchange Rule
14.11(m).\10\ Accordingly, the issuers of each of the Fidelity Model
Funds each represent that it and any person acting on behalf of such
fund will comply with Regulation Fair Disclosure under the Act,\11\
including with respect to any Custom Basket. Each issuer also
represents that for each Custom Basket utilized by each Fidelity Model
Fund, each business day, before the opening of trading in Regular
Trading Hours (as defined in Rule 1.5(w)), the investment company shall
make publicly available on its website the composition of any

Custom Basket transacted on the previous business day, except a Custom
Basket that differs from the applicable Tracking Basket only with
respect to cash. Finally, the adviser and sub-adviser to each of the
Fidelity Model Funds each represent that a fire wall exists and will be
maintained between the respective personnel at each of (i) the adviser
and sub-adviser, and (ii) their respective affiliated broker-dealers
with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or
changes to the applicable fund's portfolio, Tracking Basket, and/or the
Custom Basket, as applicable. Specifically, the adviser and the sub-
adviser each represent that the personnel who make decisions on the
applicable fund's portfolio composition, Tracking Basket, and/or Custom
Basket or who have access to nonpublic information regarding the Fund
Portfolio,\12\ Tracking Basket, and/or Creation Basket or changes
thereto are subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and
dissemination of material non-public information regarding such
portfolio, Tracking Basket, and/or Creation Basket. In the event that
(a) the adviser or a sub-adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer
or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer; or (b) any new adviser or
sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated
with a broker-dealer; it will implement and maintain a fire wall with
respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as
applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition
and/or changes to the Fund Portfolio, Tracking Basket, and/or Creation
Basket, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use
and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding such
portfolio, Tracking Basket, and/or Creation Basket. Any person or
entity, including any service provider for any of the Fidelity Model
Funds, who has access to nonpublic information regarding the Fund
Portfolio, Tracking Basket, and/or Creation Basket or changes thereto
for the Custom Basket Fund will be subject to procedures designed to
prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information
regarding the Fund Portfolio, Tracking Basket or Creation Basket or
changes thereto. Further, any such person or entity that is registered
as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, must have
erected and will maintain a ``fire wall'' between the person or entity
and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning
the composition and/or changes to such Fund Portfolio, Tracking Basket,
or Creation Basket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ BZX has already modified the listing rules for the Invesco
US Large Cap Core ESG ETF and Invesco Real Assets ESG ETF to permit
each of the funds to include select securities from its respective
Investment Universe in the fund's Tracking Basket. See Securities
Exchange Act No. 93546 (November 9, 2021) 86 FR 63429 (November 16,
2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-075) (Notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of a proposed rule change to reflect a modification to
the permitted components of the Tracking Baskets of the Invesco Real
Assets ESG ETF and Invesco US Large Cap Core ESG ETF).
    \11\ 17 CFR 243.100-243.103. Regulation Fair Disclosure provides
that whenever an issuer, or any person acting on its behalf,
discloses material nonpublic information regarding that issuer or
its securities to certain individuals or entities--generally,
securities market professionals, such as stock analysts, or holders
of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the
information--the issuer must make public disclosure of that
information.
    \12\ As defined in Rule 14.11(m)(3)(B), the term ``Fund
Portfolio'' means the identities and quantities of the securities
and other assets held by the Investment Company that will form the
basis for the Investment Company's calculation of net asset value at
the end of the business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the Fidelity Model Funds will comply with the above-
described conditions as well as the conditions of the Reference Order,
as amended, and the Exchange is updating the listing rule for the
Shares accordingly. Except for the changes noted above, all other
representations made in prior filings for each Fidelity Model Fund \13\
remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continued listing
requirements for each of the Fidelity Model Funds. The Fidelity Model
Funds will also continue to comply with the requirements of Rule
14.11(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supra notes 3 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed amendments would (i) permit the Issuer to
include select securities from the Fund's Investment Universe in the
Fund's Tracking Basket, and (ii) permit each of the Fidelity Model
Funds the use of Custom Baskets, as provided in the amended Reference
Order. The proposed rule change would permit the Fidelity Model Funds
to operate consistent with their respective exemptive relief, which
incorporates the Reference Order that may be amended from time to time.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit the Issuer to include
select securities from the Fund's Investment Universe in the Fund's
Tracking Basket raises no novel issues under the Act.\16\ Further, the
Exchange believes the proposal to permit the Fidelity Model Funds the
use of Custom Baskets is consistent with and contemplated by Rule
14.11(m), as amended, which the Commission found to be consistent with
the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities and Exchange Act No. 92946 (September 13,
2021) 86 FR 51941 (September 17, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-060) (Notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change to
reflect an Amendment to the Application and Exemptive Order
governing the following funds, shares of which are listed and traded
on the Exchange under BZX Rule 14.11(m): Fidelity Growth
Opportunities ETF, Fidelity Magellan ETF, Fidelity Real Estate
Investment ETF, Fidelity Small-Mid Cap Opportunities ETF, Fidelity
Blue Chip Value ETF, Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF, and Fidelity New
Millennium ETF). See also supra note 10.
    \17\ Supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made
in the prior filings for each of the Fidelity Model Funds \18\ remain
unchanged and, as noted, will continue to constitute continuing listing
requirements for the Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Supra notes 3 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of the Act. As noted, the proposed
amendments are intended to (i) permit the Issuer to include select
securities from the Fund's Investment Universe in the Fund's Tracking
Basket, and (ii) permit each of the Fidelity Model Funds the use of
Custom Baskets, as provided in the amended Reference Order. The
Exchange believes that these changes will not impose any burden on
competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may take effect upon filing. The Exchange represents that
the Funds will continue to comply with the requirements of BZX Rule
14.11(m). The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposed rule change does not raise any new or
novel issues.\24\ Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93147, supra note
9, and 93546, supra note 10.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-016. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-016 and should be submitted
on or before April 7, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Eduardo Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05601 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17946]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06928]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
28, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 21, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06928 Filed 3-21-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31826-31828]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62190; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Correlated Instrument Delta Hedge
Exemption

May 27, 2010.
    On March 19, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to (i) expand the delta hedging
exemption available for equity options position limits; (ii) amend the
reporting requirements applicable to members relying on the delta
hedging exemption; and (iii) adopt a delta hedging exemption from
certain index options position limits. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010.\3\ On
May 19, 2010, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61785 (March 25,
2010), 75 FR 16888.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 deleted the word ``or'' from the rule text
of the proposal and deleted a footnote from the purpose section and
Exhibit 1 of the proposal. Because the amendment does not affect the
substance of the rule filing, the amendment does not require notice
and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2007, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to create
an exemption from position and exercise limits applicable to equity
options (stock options and options on exchange-traded funds) for
positions held by CBOE members and certain non-member affiliates that
are delta neutral \5\ under a ``permitted pricing model'' \6\ (``Equity
Exemption'').\7\ When a position is not delta neutral, only the option
contract equivalent of the net delta \8\ of the position remains
subject to the position limits in Rule 4.11. Currently, the Equity
Exemption is available only for securities that directly underlie the
applicable option position. For example, with respect to options on
exchange-traded funds (``ETF options''), index options overlying the
same index on which the ETF is based currently cannot be combined with
the ETF options to calculate a net delta for purposes of the Equity
Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Delta neutral'' is defined as a precise term for purposes
of the Equity Exemption in Rule 4.11.04(c)(A).
    \6\ Under Rule 4.11.04(c)(C), ``permitted pricing model'' for
purposes of the Equity Exemption is a pricing model: (1) Maintained
and operated by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC Model'');
(2) maintained and used by a member or its non-member affiliate
subject to consolidated supervision by the Commission pursuant to
Appendix E of Rule 15c3-1, 17 CFR 240.15c3-1, under the Act; (3)
maintained and used by a financial holding company (``FHC'') or a
company treated as an FHC under the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956, or its affiliate subject to consolidated holding company group
supervision; (4) maintained and used by a Commission-registered OTC
derivatives dealer; or (5) used by a national bank under the
National Bank Act.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 72428 (December 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-99)
(``Exemption Approval Order''). In August 2009, the Commission
approved a CBOE proposal to extend the Equity Exemption to
customers. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60555 (August 21,
2009), 74 FR 43741 (August 27, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-39). The
Commission notes that the Equity Exemption is not currently
available to customers. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61857 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR 18931 (April 13, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-
30).
    \8\ ``Net delta'' is defined as a precise term for the purposes
of the Equity Exemption in Rule 4.11.04(c)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would expand the Equity Exemption by
permitting equity option positions for which the underlying security is
an ETF that is based on the same index as an index option to be
combined with any position in the underlying ETF as well as any
position in an index option and/or a correlated instrument for
calculation of the Equity Exemption.\9\ The term ``correlated
instrument'' would

be defined to mean securities and/or other instruments that track the
performance of or are based on the same underlying index as the index
underlying the option position. Thus, the proposed rule change would
allow financial products such as securities index options, index
futures, and options on index futures to be included along with the ETF
in an equity option's net delta calculation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ However, this would not include baskets of securities for
purposes of the delta hedging exemptions.
    \10\ For example, the proposed rule would allow options on
Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts (``SPY''), which tracks the
performance of the S&P 500 index, to be hedged not only with SPY
shares, but with S&P 500 options, S&P 500 futures, options on S&P
500 futures or any other instrument that tracks the performance of
or is based on the S&P 500 index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate the use of index options and correlated instruments
in the calculation of the Equity Exemption, the Exchange proposes to
amend the definition of ``net delta'' in Rule 4.11.04(c)(B) to mean, at
any time, the number of shares and/or other units of trade (either long
or short) required to offset the risk that the value of an equity
option position will change with incremental changes in the price of
the security underlying the option position, as determined in
accordance with a permitted pricing model. The Exchange also proposes
to amend the definition of the ``option contract equivalent of the net
delta'' to mean the net delta divided by the number of shares that
equate to one option contract on a delta basis. Index options and
equity options (i.e., ETF options) that are eligible to be combined for
computing a delta-based hedge exemption, along with all securities and/
or other instruments that are based on or track the performance of the
same underlying security or index, will be grouped and the net delta
and options contract equivalent of the net delta will be calculated for
each respective option class based on offsets realized from the
grouping as a whole.
    In another aspect of the proposal, CBOE proposes to relieve
Exchange Market-Makers and Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')
using the OCC Model from the reporting requirements of the Equity
Exemption because, as explained by CBOE, Market-Maker and DPM position
and delta information can be accessed through the Exchange's market
surveillance systems. The Exchange noted that this proposal is
consistent with similar exemptions from the reporting requirements
under Rule 4.13 and those applicable to broad-based index options and
FLEX options.
    Finally, CBOE proposes to adopt an exemption from position and
exercise limits \11\ for positions in index options \12\ held by CBOE
members, certain of their affiliates, and customers that are delta
neutral \13\ under a permitted pricing model (``Index Exemption'').\14\
The options contract equivalent of the net delta \15\ of such position
would be subject to the appropriate position limit (subject to the
availability of any other position limit exemptions).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Exchange Rule 24.5 establishes exercise limits for an index
option at the same level as the index option's position limit under
index options position limit rules, therefore no changes are
proposed to Rule 24.5.
    \12\ The Index Exemption would apply to broad-based index
options as well as industry index options. See proposed Rules
24.4.05 and Rule 24.4A.03.
    \13\ The term ``delta neutral'' would be defined as referring to
an index option position that is hedged, in accordance with a
permitted pricing model, by a position in one or more correlated
instruments for the purpose of offsetting the risk that the value of
the option position will change with incremental changes in the
value of the underlying index. The term ``correlated instruments''
would be defined to mean securities and/or other instruments that
track the performance of or are based on the same underlying index
as the index underlying the option position. See proposed Rules
24.4.05(A). These definitions would allow financial products such as
ETF options, index futures, options on index futures and ETFs that
track the performance of or are based on the same underlying index
to be included in an index option's net delta calculation.
    \14\ The terms ``delta neutral,'' ``permitted pricing model,''
and ``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' would be
defined for the Index Exemption similar to the way these terms are
defined for the Equity Exemption; with appropriate adjustments. See
id. and infra note 15.
    \15\ For purposes of the Index Exemption, the term ``options
contract equivalent of the net delta'' would be defined as the net
delta divided by ``units of trade that equate to one option contract
on a delta basis,'' and the term ``net delta'' would be defined as,
at any time, the number of shares ``and/or other units of trade
(either long or short)'' required to offset the risk that the value
of an index option position will change with incremental changes in
the value of the underlying index, as determined in accordance with
a permitted pricing model.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(B). The Commission notes that
Rule 24.4 provides for multiple, independent hedge exemptions. Of
course, to the extent that a position is used to hedge for the
purpose of one exemption from position limit requirements, such as
the Index Exemption, such position cannot be used to take advantage
of another exemption from position limit requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member that intends to employ, or whose non-member affiliate or
customer intends to employ, the Index Exemption would be required to
provide a written certification to CBOE stating that the member, its
affiliate, and/or its customer will use a permitted pricing model.\17\
In addition, members that carry an account that includes an index
option position for a non-member affiliate would be required to obtain
and provide to the Exchange a written statement from the non-member
affiliate confirming that the affiliate: (1) Is relying on this
exemption; (2) will use only a permitted pricing model for purposes of
calculating the net delta of its option positions for purposes of this
exemption; (3) will promptly notify the member if it ceases to rely on
this exemption; (4) authorizes the member, upon request, to provide to
the Exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation such information
regarding positions of the non-member affiliate as part of the
Exchange's confirmation or verification of the accuracy of the net
delta calculation under this exemption; and (5) if the non-member
affiliate is using the OCC Model, has duly executed and delivered to
the member such documents as the Exchange may require as a condition to
reliance on this exemption.\18\ Members that carry an account that
includes an index option position for a customer would be required to
obtain and provide to the Exchange a written statement from the
customer confirming that the customer: (1) Is relying on this
exemption; (2) will use only the OCC Model for purposes of calculating
the net delta of the customer's options positions for purposes of this
exemption; (3) will promptly notify the member if the customer ceases
to rely on this exemption; and (4) in connection with using the OCC
Model, has duly executed and delivered to the member such documents as
the Exchange may require as a condition to reliance on this
exemption.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(E)(1)(i), (3)(i), and (4)(i). The
Commission notes that customers relying on the Index Exemption would
be permitted to hedge their positions only in accordance with the
OCC Model. See proposed Rule 24.4.05(A). In addition, the Commission
notes that, consistent with the Equity Exemption, the Exchange will
not make the Index Exemption available to customers until the
Exchange provides a representation to the Commission's Office of
Compliance Inspections and Examinations that it can adequately
surveil for such a customer exemption. Telephone conversation
between Andrew Spiwak, Director Legal Division and Chief Enforcement
Attorney, CBOE, and Theodore S. Venuti, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, on May 27, 2010. See also supra
note 7.
    \18\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(E)(3)(ii).
    \19\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(E)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, any member would be required to report, in accordance
with Rule 4.13, all index options positions (including those that are
delta neutral) that are reportable under that rule, and also would be
required to report on its own behalf or on behalf of a designated
aggregation unit \20\ the net delta and

options contract equivalent of the net delta of such positions for a
each account that holds an index option position subject to the delta
hedging exemption in excess of the levels specified in 24.4 (and Rule
24.4A, in the case of industry index options).\21\ Each member relying
on the exemption would be required to retain, and undertake reasonable
efforts to ensure that its non-member affiliates or customers relying
on the exemption retain, a list of the options, securities, and other
instruments underlying each option position net delta calculation
reported to the Exchange; and to produce such information to the
Exchange upon request.\22\ In addition, the options positions of a non-
member relying on the exemption would be required to be carried by a
member with which it is affiliated.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(D), which provides, under certain
conditions, that the net delta of an options position held by an
entity entitled to rely on the exemption could be calculated without
regard to positions in correlated instruments held by an affiliated
entity or another trading unit within the same entity, provided
that, among other things, no control relationship exists between
such affiliates or trading units and the entity has designated in
writing in advance the affiliates or trading units that are to be
considered separate and distinct from each other.
    \21\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(F). See also supra note 12.
    \22\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(G).
    \23\ See proposed Rule 24.4.05(E)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the operative date of the proposed rule
change in a regulatory circular to be published no later than 60 days
after Commission approval. The operative date shall be no later than 30
days after publication of the regulatory circular.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.\24\
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\25\ which requires, among
other things, that CBOE rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the Equity Exemption, the Commission noted its
previous statement in support of recognizing options positions hedged
on a delta neutral basis as properly exempted from position limits.\26\
The Commission believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the
Act to expand the Equity Exemption to allow the use of correlated
instruments in determining whether an ETF options position is delta
neutral. The Commission further believes that it is appropriate and
consistent with the Act to establish a delta based index options hedge
exemption from position limits. Finally, the Commission believes that
it is reasonable for CBOE to exempt Exchange Market-Makers and DPMs
using the OCC Model from the reporting requirements of the Equity
Exemption, and not to include them as subject to the reporting
requirements of the Index Exemption, because the Exchange can access
the information through the Exchange's market surveillance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23,
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (File No. S7-30-97)
(adopting rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers), cited in
Exemption Approval Order, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2010-021), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13439 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39586-39587]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0255; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-6]
RIN-2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; St Marys, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at St Marys, GA, because St Marys Airport has
closed, and controlled airspace is no longer required at this location.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it supports removal of Class E airspace due to the closure of St
Marys Airport, St Marys, GA.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 23831, May 23, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0255 to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at St Marys Airport, St Marys, GA. This airport has closed.
Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary at this site.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface due to the closure of St Marys Airport, St Marys, GA.
Therefore, controlled airspace is no longer necessary at this site.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 St Marys, GA [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 31, 2018.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-17089 Filed 8-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P