[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 27060-27061]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0221]

Operating Limitations at Newark Liberty International Airport

ACTION: Notice of order to show cause and request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing an order to show cause, which solicits the
views of interested persons on the FAA's tentative determination to
extend through October 30, 2010, the May 15, 2008 order limiting the
number of scheduled aircraft arrivals at Newark Liberty International
Airport during peak operating hours. The text of the order to show
cause is set forth in this notice.

DATES: Any written information that responds to the FAA's order to show
cause must be submitted by June 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written information, identified by docket
number FAA-2008-0221, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons wishing to receive
confirmation of receipt of their written submission should include a
self-addressed stamped postcard.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile: Fax comments to the docket operations personnel
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: We will post all comments that we receive, without change,
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information that
you provide. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone
can find and read the electronic form of all comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment or
signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
or other entity or organization. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register at 65 FR 19477-78 (April
11, 2000), or you may find it at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.
    Reviewing the Docket: To read background documents or comments
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket; or go to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James W. Tegtmeier, Associate Chief
Counsel for the Air Traffic Organization; telephone--(202) 267-8323; e-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order To Show Cause

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has tentatively
determined that it will extend through October 30, 2010, the FAA's May
15, 2008 order limiting scheduled operations at Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR) (May 2008 order).\1\ This order to show
cause invites air carriers and other interested persons to submit
comments in Docket FAA-2008-0221 on this proposal to extend the
duration of the May 2008 order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at Newark Liberty
International Airport, 73 FR 29,550 (May 21, 2008).
    \2\ The FAA is separately accepting comments on a proposal to
extend the January 15, 2008 order limiting scheduled operations at
John F. Kennedy Liberty International Airport (JFK). The public may
file or review documents related to the JFK order in Docket FAA-
2007-29320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The May 2008 order followed a period of elevated, congestion-
related delays at the New York area's three commercial airports,
culminating in the FAA's issuance of an order limiting scheduled
operations at JFK in January 2008. To prevent new flights from moving
to EWR, which was already prone to delays and scheduled near or above
its average hourly runway capacity during many peak hours, the FAA
engaged the U.S. and foreign air carriers serving EWR to reduce the
number of scheduled operations during peak hours and to move operations
to less congested hours. The May 2008 order captured the agreed upon
schedules and limited the number of scheduled operations conducted by
U.S. and foreign air

carriers at EWR during peak operating hours. The order took effect June
20, 2008, and in the absence of an extension, it will expire on October
24, 2009.
    The FAA established the order's October 2009 expiration date to
permit time to promulgate a final rule that would control congestion at
EWR, and the FAA adopted a final rule to manage congestion at EWR that
would have continued operational limits at the airport beyond October
2009. 73 FR 60544 (Oct. 10, 2008). However, the rule was stayed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prior to the
rule's December 9, 2008 effective date. The FAA is currently soliciting
comments on a proposal to rescind the final rule. 74 FR 22714 (May 14,
2009). As a result of the FAA's reconsideration of the rule, the court
is holding in abeyance the briefing schedule in the rule's associated
litigation.
    In light of the events that have transpired since the May 2008
order took effect, it is now unlikely that the FAA will have an
effective final rule on the May 2008 order's original expiration date.
In the absence of the FAA's extension of the order, the FAA anticipates
a return of the congestion-related delays that precipitated the
voluntary schedule reductions and adjustments reflected in the May 2008
order. The hourly capacity at EWR has not increased significantly since
the order took effect late last spring. Because the demand for
operations at New York-area airports remains high, the FAA has
determined that an extension of the May 2008 order appears to be
appropriate while the FAA identifies the appropriate long-term solution
to congestion at EWR.
    Order To Show Cause:
    To prevent a recurrence of overscheduling at EWR during the interim
between the expiration of the May 2008 order on October 24, 2009, and
the effective date of a rule, the FAA tentatively intends to extend the
May 2008 order. The limit on scheduled operations that is embodied in
the order reflects the FAA's agreements with U.S. and foreign air
carriers. As a result, maintaining the order for an additional, finite
period constitutes a reasonable approach to preventing unacceptable
congestion and delays at EWR until a longer term measure is
implemented. The May 2008 order, as extended, would expire on October
30, 2010.
    Accordingly, the FAA directs all interested persons to show cause
why the FAA should not make final its tentative findings and tentative
decision to extend the May 2008 order through October 30, 2010, by
filing their written views in Docket FAA-2008-0221. The FAA does not
intend this request for the views of interested persons to address any
issues related to the existing final rule or any future congestion
management rule. Therefore, any submission to the current docket should
be limited to the proposed extension of the May 2008 order.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2009.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E9-13190 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 21424]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR20-11-000]

Sunoco Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 3, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), Sunoco Pipeline
L.P. (``Sunoco''), filed a declaratory order petition: (1) Seeking
approval of the right of Sunoco to enter into new transportation
services agreements for previously committed capacity on its Mariner
West ethane pipeline, and (2) approving the tariff, rate structure and
terms of such service, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 1, 2020.

    Dated: April 13, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08183 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75328-75330]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3077]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Obtaining Information
To Understand Challenges and Opportunities Encountered by Compounding
Outsourcing Facilities

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by December 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0883. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Obtaining Information To Understand Challenges and Opportunities
Encountered by Compounding Outsourcing Facilities

OMB Control Number 0910-0883--Extension

    This information collection supports Agency-sponsored research.
Drug compounding is generally the practice of combining, mixing, or
altering ingredients of a drug to create a medication tailored to the
needs of an individual patient. Although compounded drugs can serve an
important medical need for certain patients when an approved drug is
not medically appropriate, they also present a risk to patients.
Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved. Therefore, they do not undergo
premarket review by FDA for safety, effectiveness, and quality. Since
compounded drugs are subject to a lower regulatory standard than
approved drugs, Federal law places conditions on compounding that are
designed to protect the public health.
    The Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-54) created
``outsourcing facilities''--a new industry sector of drug compounders
held to

higher quality standards to protect patient health. Outsourcing
facilities are intended to offer a more reliable supply of compounded
drugs needed by hospitals, clinics, and other providers. Seven years
since its creation, this domestic industry is still relatively small
and is experiencing growth and market challenges. In addition, FDA
continues to find concerning quality and safety problems during
inspections.
    To help this industry meet its intended function, FDA intends to
engage in several initiatives to address challenges and support
compliance and advancement. One initiative includes conducting in-depth
research to understand better the challenges and opportunities
encountered by the outsourcing facility sector in a number of different
areas. These include: Operational barriers and opportunities related to
the outsourcing facility market and business viability; knowledge and
operational barriers and opportunities related to compliance with
Federal policies and good quality drug production; and barriers and
opportunities related to outsourcing facility interactions with FDA.
    This is an extension of research that began last year. We have
learned about barriers and opportunities encountered by outsourcing
facilities in several areas. These include: Operational barriers and
opportunities related to the outsourcing facility market and business
viability; knowledge and operational barriers and opportunities related
to compliance with Federal policies and good quality drug production;
and barriers and opportunities related to outsourcing facility
interactions with FDA. We need to extend this information collection
for two reasons: (1) Based on what we learned, we will want to ask some
follow up questions in these areas; (2) We received a low response rate
and need to reach the rest of the outsourcing facility industry. We
only managed to obtain completed surveys from approximately one third
of respondents. Only 45 percent of outsourcing facilities provided any
response to the survey. Therefore, over half of outsourcing facilities
did not respond to our survey, and we were unable to obtain their
viewpoints. The results of this research will be used by FDA to develop
a comprehensive understanding of the outsourcing facility sector, its
challenges, and opportunities for advancement. The information will be
essential to help identify knowledge and information gaps, operational
barriers, and views on interactions with FDA. The research results will
inform FDA's future approaches to communication, education, training,
and other engagement with outsourcing facilities to address challenges
and support advancement.
    Researchers will engage pharmacists, staff, and management from
outsourcing facilities and similar compounding businesses. Researchers
may use surveys, interviews, and focus groups to obtain information
concerning challenges and opportunities encountered by outsourcing
facilities. Within this context, the following questions or similar,
related questions may be posed:
    1. What financial and operational considerations inform outsourcing
facility operational and business model decisions?
    2. What factors impact the development of a sustainable outsourcing
facility business?
    3. What financial and operational considerations inform outsourcing
facility product decisions?
    4. Do outsourcing facilities understand the Federal legislative and
regulatory policies that apply to them? What, if any, knowledge gaps
need to be addressed?
    5. What challenges do outsourcing facilities face when implementing
Federal current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements?
    6. How do outsourcing facilities implement quality practices at
their facilities?
    7. How is CGMP and quality expertise developed by outsourcing
facilities? How do they obtain this knowledge, and what training do
they need?
    8. What are the economic consequences of CGMP noncompliance/product
failures for outsourcing facilities?
    9. What are outsourcing facility management and staff views on
current interactions with FDA? How do they want the interactions to
change?
    10. What are outsourcing facilities' understanding of how to engage
with FDA during and following an inspection?
    In the Federal Register of June 18, 2020 (85 FR 36857), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received four comments. Although four
comments were received, three were not responsive to the four
collection of information topics solicited and, therefore, will not be
discussed in this document. The other comment included a number of
suggested questions to expand upon the questions posed in the 60-day
notice and, therefore, can be considered ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. While the
questions will not be included verbatim in our survey instrument, FDA
will give the questions due consideration as the Agency proceeds with
this study.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys, focus groups, and interviews..............................             300                2              600                1              600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: November 16, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26066 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45373-45376]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14893]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 70

[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0353; FRL-11161-01-R1]

Air Plan Approval and Operating Permit Program Approval;
Connecticut; Revision to Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revised definition in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
the Title V Operating Permit Program for the State of Connecticut. On
June 9, 2023, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (CT DEEP) submitted to EPA a request to parallel process
recently proposed revisions to the state's definition of ``severe non-
attainment area for ozone'' for inclusion in the EPA-approved SIP and
Title V Operating Permit Program. The revision is necessary to fully
implement these programs based on a nonattainment reclassification to a
portion of Connecticut for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. EPA is approving these revisions pursuant to the CAA and
implementing federal regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Bird, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MO), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.
(617) 918-1287, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Impacts on Reasonably Available Control Technology, New Source
Review and Title V Programs
III. Review of CT DEEP's Submittal
IV. Parallel Processing
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 7, 2022, EPA published a final rule to reclassify, among
other areas, the southwest Connecticut ozone nonattainment area to
severe nonattainment from serious nonattainment based on the area's
inability to attain the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) by the attainment date (87 FR 60926).
    Connecticut regulations define nonattainment areas in a geographic
manner. The current definition of ``severe non-attainment area for
ozone,'' as found in 22a-174-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies (RCSA), is based on the nonattainment area designation under
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS of 1979. The area includes all towns and cities
in Fairfield County, except the town of Shelton, and two towns in
Litchfield County (Bridgewater and New Milford). The current definition
of ``serious non-attainment area for ozone,'' as found in RCSA 22a-174-
1, ``means all towns within the State of Connecticut, except those
towns located in the severe non-attainment area for ozone.''
    The southwest Connecticut ozone nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS is larger than the older area associated with the 1979
ozone NAAQS, and it includes all of Fairfield County, New Haven County,
and Middlesex County.
    On March 20, 2023, CT DEEP proposed changes to the definition of
``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1. A
public comment period was open through May 10, 2023. The proposed
change to the definition expanded the list of cities and towns included
in the existing definition, including all cities and towns in New Haven
County and Middlesex County. CT DEEP retained the two towns in
Litchfield County to ensure consistency in the severe classification
requirements in these communities and to comply with section 193 of the
CAA which prohibits any control measure in effect in a nonattainment
area prior to the enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to be
modified after enactment, unless such modification yields equivalent or
greater emission reductions.

II. Impacts on Reasonably Available Control Technology, New Source
Review and Title V Programs

    Changes in an area's ozone nonattainment classification impact,
among other things, the tons per year threshold for major stationary
sources. Consistent with section 182(d) of the CAA, upon the effective
date of the reclassification, a major source for all severe
nonattainment areas, including the southwest Connecticut ozone
nonattainment area, was defined as any stationary source that emits, or
has the potential to emit, at least 25 tons per year of nitrogen oxides
or voltile organic compounds. Given the way in which Connecticut's
definitions and regulatory programs are structured, the
reclassification from serious to severe nonattainment creates a
programmatic gap between the federal major source threshold and the
state major source threshold in portions of the southwest Connecticut
ozone nonattainment area.
    Connecticut regulations incorporate the definition of ``severe non-
attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious non-attainment area for
ozone'' into several key definitions and program requirements that
guide determinations of applicability to programs such as reasonably
available control technology (RACT), the New Source Review
preconstruction permitting program and the Title V operating permitting
program, as well as prohibitory rules that limit a source's potential
to emit to below Title V permitting thresholds.
    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require states to
implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) non-
attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires
RACT in states located in the Ozone Transport Region. Specifically,
these areas are required to implement RACT for all major stationary
sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and for all
sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline. EPA approved
Connecticut's RACT regulations into the SIP for volatile organic
compounds at RCSA 22a-174-32 and for nitrogen oxides at RCSA 22a-174-
22. The applicability of these RACT regulations relies, in part, on the
definitions of ``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious
non-attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1. Therefore,
revisions to the geographic scope of those definitions impact how RCSA
22a-174-22 and RCSA 22a-174-32 are implemented.
    Connecticut's New Source Review program is federally enforceable
through EPA's approval of applicable regulations into the Connecticut
SIP. EPA last

approved New Source Review SIP elements on February 15, 2019 (84 FR
4338). Within Connecticut's rules, a ``major stationary source,'' as
defined at RCSA 22a-174-1, includes, ``[a] stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit twenty-five (25) tons per year of volatile
organic compounds or nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor in any
severe ozone nonattainment area'' and ``[a] stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit fifty (50) tons per year of volatile
organic compounds or nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor in any
serious ozone nonattainment area.''
    Connecticut's New Source Review permitting program relies on the
definition of ``major stationary source'' within the applicability
sections of the state's prevention of significant deterioration program
at RCSA 22a-174-3a(k) and nonattainment New Source Review program at
RCSA 22a-174-3a(l). Therefore, the thresholds within the definition of
``major stationary source,'' and that term's inclusion in the
applicability sections of the state's New Source Review programs,
directly rely on the geographic-specific definitions of ``severe non-
attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious non-attainment area for
ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1.
    Connecticut's Title V program is an EPA-approved operating permits
program under 40 CFR part 70. See the y on the geographic-specific
definitions of ``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious
non-attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1.
    Connecticut also has two EPA-approved prohibitory rules that limit
sources' potential to emit to below Title V thresholds. RCSA 22a-174-
33a and 22a-174-33b were approved by EPA on March 11, 2022 (87 FR
13936) and provide a mechanism for Connecticut sources to comply with
legally and practicably enforceable limits to levels 50% or 80% of the
Title V thresholds for regulated NSR pollutants or hazardous air
pollutants. RCSA 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b both define ````Title V
source thresholds'' to mean the tons per year levels in the definition
of ``Title V source,'' as found in the state's Title V operating permit
program at RCSA 22a-174-33. Again, through reliance on the terms
``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious non-attainment
area for ozone,'' the geographic scope of those definitions impact how
RCSA 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b are implemented.

III. Review of CT DEEP's Submittal

    On June 9, 2023, CT DEEP submitted to EPA a revised version of the
definition of ``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-
174-1 for approval into the SIP and as a program revision to the
state's Title V operating permitting program. The proposed definition
includes all cities and towns in Fairfield County, New Haven County,
Middlesex County and the towns of Bridgewater and New Milford of
Litchfield County.
    The definition is consistent with what was proposed at the state
level on March 20, 2023. At the time of state proposal, EPA reviewed
the RACT, New Source Review, Title V, and applicable prohibitory rules
to determine if any other regulatory revisions were needed to satisfy
the immediate impacts related to the programmatic gap between the
federal major source threshold and the state major source threshold in
portions of the southwest Connecticut ozone nonattainment area due to
the reclassification of the area to severe nonattainment. As described
in sections I. and II. of this notice, the terms ``severe non-
attainment area for ozone'' and ``serious non-attainment area for
ozone'' are applicable within several sections of the state's rules,
and EPA concluded that by revising the definition of ``severe non-
attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1, several programs
would be immediately compliant with the federal major source threshold
as part of EPA's reclassification of the southwest Connecticut ozone
nonattainment area to severe nonattainment.

IV. Parallel Processing

    In CT DEEP's June 9, 2023 submittal, the state requested parallel
processing of the revised definition of ``severe non-attainment area
for ozone'' within RCSA 22a-174-1 for approval within the Connecticut
SIP and as a Title V program revision. Under this procedure, EPA would
propose for approval the revision before the state's final adoption of
the definition. Given the significance of this revision on several
important CAA programs, we see the value in proceeding with parallel
processing. Connecticut has also indicated that no comments were
submitted concerning the definition of ``severe non-attainment area for
ozone'' during the public comment period for the state rulemaking.
Connecticut has indicated that it plans to have a final adopted
regulation by October or November of 2023. After Connecticut submits
its final adopted regulation, EPA will review the regulation to
determine whether it differs from the proposed regulation submitted on
June 9, 2023.
    If the final regulation does not differ from the proposed
regulation, EPA will process a final rule, adopting the revised
definition into the SIP and as a Title V program revision. If the final
regulation does differ from the proposed regulation, EPA will determine
whether these differences are significant. Based on EPA's determination
regarding the significance of any changes in the final regulation, EPA
would then decide whether it is appropriate to prepare a final rule and
describe the changes in the final rulemaking action, re-propose action
based on Connecticut's final adopted regulation, or other such action
as may be appropriate.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's revised definition of
``severe non-attainment area for ozone'' within RCSA section 22a-174-1,
as proposed by the state on March 20, 2023 and submitted to EPA on June
9, 2023 with a request to parallel process the proposal. EPA is
proposing to approve this revised definition within the Connecticut SIP
and as a Title V program revision.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the revised definition and
programmatic implications discussed in this notice or on other relevant
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the revised definition of ``severe non-attainment area for
ozone'' within Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-1, which, upon final
action, will have impacts to several state regulations, including RACT,
the state's New Source Review program, and applicable prohibitory
regulations as discussed in section II. of this preamble. The impact of
this revision will change the threshold by which these State programs
will apply to sources of NOx and VOCs in Connecticut. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please
contact the

person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In reviewing SIP and Title V submissions, EPA's role is to approve
such submissions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA and
EPA's implementing regulations. These actions merely approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
actions:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Furthermore, the rules regarding Title V operating permit programs
do not have tribal implications because they are not approved to apply
to any source of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe has
jurisdiction, nor will these rules impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected
to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating Permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 10, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-14893 Filed 7-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 194-197]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82409; File No. SR-IEX-2017-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
the Displayed Match Fee

December 27, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on December 14, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant
to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to: (i) To increase the fee for orders
that provide or take resting interest with displayed priority (i.e.,
displayed liquidity) during continuous trading, (ii) eliminate the
exception to the Non-Displayed Match Fee for taking non-displayed
liquidity with a displayable order for Members that predominantly
provide displayed liquidity (iii) increase the fee for orders displayed
on the Continuous Book that execute as part of the Opening Process for
Non-IEX-Listed Securities (the ``Opening Process'') while continuing to
provide such orders free execution in the Opening and Closing Auction
when IEX begins to list securities as a primary listing exchange, and
(iv) make two nonsubstantive clarifying changes to its Fee Schedule.
Changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective
upon filing, and will be operative on January 1, 2018.The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX
Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to (i) to increase the fee for orders that
provide or take displayed liquidity during continuous trading, (ii)
eliminate the exception to the Non-Displayed Match Fee for taking non-
displayed liquidity with a displayable order for Members that
predominantly provide displayed liquidity, (iii) increase the fee for
orders displayed on the Continuous Book that execute as part of the
Opening Process while continuing to provide such orders free execution
in the Opening and Closing Auction when IEX begins to list securities
as a primary listing exchange, and (iv) make two nonsubstantive
clarifying changes to its Fee Schedule.
Displayed Match Fee
    Pursuant to the existing Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently does
not charge any fee to Members for executions on IEX that provide or
take displayed liquidity (i.e., an order or portion of a reserve order
that is booked and ranked with display priority on the Order Book \6\
either as the IEX best bid or best offer (``BBO''), or at a less
aggressive price). This pricing is referred to by the Exchange as the
``Displayed Match Fee'', resulting in a Fee Code of `L' provided by the
Exchange on execution reports to Members.\7\ The Exchange proposes to
update its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to (i)
increase the Displayed Match Fee from $0 to $0.0003 for securities with
an execution price at or above $1.00, or 0.30% of the total dollar
value of the transaction for securities with an execution price below
$1.00, calculated as the execution price multiplied by the number of
shares executed in the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 1.160(p).
    \7\ See the Investors Exchange Fee Schedule, available on the
Exchange's public website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Displayed Match Fee of $0 was adopted in connection
with IEX's launch as a national securities exchange in August 2016, and
was designed to attract displayed order flow to the Exchange, without
offering rebates, thereby contributing to price discovery and
consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. The
Exchange periodically assesses its fee structure. Based upon a recent
assessment, the Exchange determined that the modest proposed fee
increase for the Displayed Match Fee would continue to attract and
incentivize displayed order flow in a comparable manner, while also
increasing revenue.
    The Exchange is not proposing any change to the Internalization Fee
whereby no fee is charged for executions when the adding and removing
order originated from the same Exchange Member. Accordingly,
transactions that qualify for the Internalization Fee will not be
charged the Displayed Match Fee, since the IEX Fee Schedule provides
that to the extent a Member receives multiple Fee Codes on an
execution, the lower fee shall apply.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Displayed Match Fee
    The Exchange currently charges the Non-Displayed Match Fee of
$0.0009

per share (or 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction for
securities with an execution price below $1.00) to Members for
executions on IEX that provide or take non-displayed liquidity (i.e.,
an order or portion of a reserve order that is booked and ranked with
non-display priority on the Order Book either at the NBBO midpoint or
at a less aggressive price on the Order Book),\9\ with the exception of
(i) executions on the Exchange where the adding and removing order
originated from the same Exchange Member and (ii) executions on IEX
that involve taking resting interest with non-displayed priority where
(a) the liquidity removing order was displayable (i.e., the order would
have booked and displayed if posted to the Order Book) and (b) on a
monthly basis, at least 90% of the liquidity removing Member's
aggregate executions of displayable orders added liquidity during such
calendar month (i.e., the ``90% display exception'').\10\ The Exchange
is proposing to eliminate the 90% display exception. As explained in
IEX's rule change adopting the 90% display exception to the Non-
Displayed Match Fee, the flexibility was designed to address limited
inadvertent liquidity removal by Members who are largely adding
displayed liquidity and generally intend to add displayed liquidity on
IEX, to further encourage aggressively priced displayed orders.\11\
However, the Exchange believes that the 90% display exception has had
limited success in encouraging aggressively priced displayed orders on
the Exchange, and has resulted in relatively small credits to Members.
During September, October, and November of 2017, no more than 31
Members (of 159 total Members) qualified for the 90% display exception
through one or more MPID's during any month. The credits ranged from
$0.03 to $9,195 with 47% (on average) of the credits under $100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ However, in such transactions, the non-displayed liquidity
adding interest is subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78550 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54873 (August 17, 2016) (SR-IEX-2016-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further the 90% display exception introduces certain technical
complexities for IEX that are associated with processing the 90%
display exception at the end of the month, as well as for Members with
respect to forecasting fees due to the Exchange. Specifically, the
Exchange's current billing processes account for the 90% display
exception at the end of the trading month by processing each MPID's
eligible trading activity to determine the number of shares, if any,
that are eligible for free execution under the 90% display exception.
The Exchange believes the computational components of the 90% display
exception are not inherently complex; however, accounting for the 90%
display exception along with other conditional fees that are processed
at the end of the trading month (e.g., the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee),
raises unnecessary technical complexities considering the fees limited
practical utility. Moreover, the Exchange believes that removing the
90% display exception will provide Members more clarity regarding the
fees assessed for executions on the Exchange, because Members will not
need to account for the 90% display exception when calculating the fees
due to the Exchange, and will instead know with certainty that
executions that receive Fee Code `I' in isolation will be subject to
the Non-Displayed Match Fee. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the exception. The Exchange thus proposes to delete the
single asterisked footnote to the Fee Schedule to delete the reference
and description of the 90% display exception, and to adjust the
footnote references that follow accordingly.
Auction and Opening Process Fee
    The Exchange Fee Schedule currently provides that displayed orders
resting on the Continuous Book that execute in the Opening Auction,
Closing Auction, or the Opening Process are not charged a fee (i.e.,
are free).\12\ IEX proposes to retain the free pricing for displayed
orders resting on the Continuous Book that execute in the Opening or
Closing Auction, but to increase the fee for displayed orders resting
on the Continuous Book that execute in the Opening Process to align
with the proposed Displayed Match Fee. The Exchange believes that the
Opening and Closing Auctions will provide a critical price discovery
mechanism that establishes the IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices,
respectively, for IEX-listed securities. It is generally the data point
most closely scrutinized by investors, securities analysts, and the
financial media, and is used to value and assess management fees on
mutual funds, hedge funds, and individual investor portfolios. The
Exchange further believes that displayed liquidity is an important part
of the Opening and Closing Auction price discovery process. Therefore,
in order to incentivize market participants to display quotations on
the Exchange leading into the Opening and Closing Auctions to support
the price formation process, the Exchange is proposing to not charge a
fee for displayed interest resting on the Continuous Book that executes
as part of the Opening or Closing Auction. In contrast, the Opening
Process for Non-Listed Securities is not designed to be a price
discovery mechanism and accordingly the Exchange does not believe that
a free pricing incentive is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarifying Changes
    The Exchange is proposing to make two nonsubstantive changes to its
Fee Schedule to clarify the fees assessed on certain orders that
receive multiple Fee Codes. First, the Exchange proposes to reorder the
asterisked footnotes to account for the elimination of the 90% display
exception. Secondly, the Exchange proposes to amend the triple
asterisked footnote and add a new sentence to the quadruple asterisked
footnote to clarify the Fee Codes provided for orders that execute in
the Opening Process and in the Opening or Closing Auctions. As
proposed, the triple asterisked footnote provides that, for orders that
execute in the Opening Process, non-displayed orders will receive a Fee
Code of X rather than I, and executions that receive a Fee Code of XL
are assessed the Displayed Match Fee. The current quadruple asterisked
footnote provides that, for orders that execute in the Opening Auction
or Closing Auction, non-displayed orders will receive a Fee Code of O
or C, respectively, rather than I, and orders that were displayed on
the Continuous Book prior to the Opening or Closing Auction will
receive a Fee Code of L, in addition to O or C, respectively (i.e.,
such orders will receive Fee Codes OL or CL, respectively). The
proposed new sentence to the quadruple asterisked footnote further
provides that executions in the Opening or Closing Auction that receive
a Fee Code of OL or CL, respectively, are free. While the third bullet
in the Transaction Fees section of the Fee Schedule currently specifies
that, except for the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee Code of Q, to the
extent a Member receives multiple Fee Codes on an execution, the lower
fee shall apply, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will
provide additional clarity to Members with respect to how multiple Fee
Codes on an execution apply.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions

of Section 6(b) \13\ of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives
of Sections 6(b)(4) \14\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is
reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the modest increase to the Displayed Match Fee remains
intended to attract displayed order flow to the Exchange by offering a
pricing incentive to send IEX aggressively priced displayable orders,
without offering rebates, thereby contributing to price discovery and
consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market quality. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a
significant departure from pricing currently offered by the Exchange.
    Specifically, the Displayed Match Fee will continue to be less than
the Non-Displayed Match Fee and substantially lower than the fee to add
displayed liquidity on an exchange with a ``taker-maker'' fee structure
(i.e., that charges liquidity providers) and to take displayed
liquidity on an exchange with a ``maker-taker'' fee structure (i.e.,
that charges liquidity takers).\15\ In addition, the Exchange believes
that it continues to be reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge the Displayed Match Fee to both the liquidity
adder and remover because it is designed to facilitate execution of,
and enhance trading opportunities for, displayable orders, thereby
further incentivizing entry of displayed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') trading
fee schedule on its public website reflects fees to ``take''
liquidity ranging from $0.0024-$0.0030 depending on the type of
market participant, order and execution. Additionally, NYSE fees to
``add'' liquidity range from $0.0018-$0.0030 per share for shares
executed in continuous trading. (See, https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info/fees). The Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')
trading fee schedule on its public website reflects fees to
``remove'' liquidity ranging from $0.0025-$0.0030 per share for
shares executed in continuous trading at or above $1.00 or 0.30% of
total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00. Additionally,
Nasdaq fees for ``adding'' liquidity range from $0.0001-$0.00305 per
share for shares executed in continuous trading. (See, http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2). The Cboe BZX
Exchange (``Cboe BZX) trading fee schedule on its public website
reflects fees for ``removing'' liquidity ranging from $0.0025-
$0.0030, for shares executed in continuous trading at or above $1.00
or 0.30% of total dollar volume for shares executed below $1.00.
Additionally, Cboe BZX fees for ``adding'' liquidity ranging from
$0.0020-$0.0045 per share for shares executed in continuous trading.
(See, https://www.batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to charge the increased Displayed
Match Fee for displayed interest resting on the Continuous Book that
executes as part of the Opening Process. As discussed in the Purpose
Section, the Opening Process is not designed to be a price discovery
mechanism and accordingly the Exchange believes that the same factors
that support increasing the Displayed Match Fee also support increasing
the fee for such orders.
    The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to continue to not charge a fee for
displayed interest resting on the Continuous Book that executes as part
of the Opening or Closing Auction. As discussed in the Purpose section,
the Opening and Closing Auctions provide a critical price discovery
mechanism that establishes the IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices,
respectively, for IEX-listed securities, and displayed liquidity is an
important part of the Opening and Closing Auction price discovery
process. Therefore, the Exchange believes that a fee incentive is
appropriate in order to incentivize market participants to display
quotations on the Exchange leading into the Opening and Closing
Auctions. The Exchange notes that Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'')
does not charge a fee for continuous book orders that execute in an
opening or closing auction in a BZX-listed security, notwithstanding
that it charges various fees for other orders that execute in such
auctions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule available
at: http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to continue to charge the
Internalization Fee rather than the Displayed Match Fee for executions
on IEX that provide or take resting interest with displayed priority
when the adding and removing order originated from the same Exchange
Member. IEX believes that the same factors that support not charging
fees for such transactions, as described in its rule filing adopting
this fee structure, continue to be relevant.\17\ Specifically, not
charging a fee is designed to incentivize Members (and their customers)
to send orders to IEX that may otherwise be internalized off exchange,
with the goal of increasing order interaction on IEX. Internalization
on IEX is not guaranteed, and the additional order flow that does not
internalize is available to trade by all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 11 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable, fair and
equitable, and non-discriminatory to eliminate the 90% display
exception, based on its limited practical utility and the technical
complexities that are associated with processing the exception, as
described in the Purpose section. Moreover, the Exchange believes that
removing the 90% display exception is reasonable because it will
provide Members more clarity regarding the fees assessed for executions
on the Exchange, because Members will not need to account for the 90%
display exception when calculating the fees due to the Exchange, and
will instead know with certainty that executions that receive Fee Code
`I' in isolation will be subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
nonsubstantive clarifying changes to the Fee Schedule are reasonable,
fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because they will provide
additional clarity to Members with respect to how multiple Fee Codes on
an execution apply, thereby eliminating any potential confusion.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
nondiscriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable.
Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees
could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited, and does
not believe that such fees would burden competition between Members or
competing venues in a manner that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Moreover, as noted in the
Statutory

Basis section, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
represent a significant departure from its current fee structure.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while
different fees are assessed in some circumstances, these different fees
are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that match but
on the type of order entered and all Members can submit any type of
order. Further, the proposed fee changes continue to be intended to
encourage market participants to bring increased order flow to the
Exchange, which benefits all market participants.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \18\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-IEX-2017-43 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-IEX-2017-43. 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-IEX-2017-43
and should be submitted on or before January 23, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28311 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18835]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4057-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the
Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 6, 2012.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-7399 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13125-13127]
[DOCID:fr18mr10-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0229; FRL-8816-8]

Pet Spot-On Analysis and Mitigation Plan Available for Public
Comment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the
availability of its analysis of the data collected as a result of the
Agency's awareness of increasing numbers of incidents associated with
registered pet spot-on products to control fleas and ticks and a
mitigation plan. The analysis consists of a Technical Review Document
and Data Evaluation Records for pet spot-on products. The Agency is
requesting comment on the necessary mitigation, including how best to
effectively implement these measures.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0229 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0229. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Nesci, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you use pet spot-
on products or are a registrant of pet spot-on products. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 32532), e.g., pet
pesticide manufacturers.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, animal health, pesticides, pet spot-on
products, pets.

    Dated: March 11, 2010.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-5957 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S