	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Amendments Extending the Applicability of Four Consumer and Commercial
Product Regulations to the Fredericksburg Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions Control Area

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This revision
extends the applicability of four consumer and commercial product
regulations--Portable Fuel Container Spillage, Mobile Equipment Repair
and Refinishing Operations, Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings, and Consumer Products--to the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions
Control Area.  These amendments are necessary to implement VOC
contingency measures within the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control
Area.  This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

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

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479 by one of the following methods:

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

B.  E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C.  Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479, Marilyn Powers, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0479.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
e-

mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 14, 2007, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) submitted a formal revision to its SIP.  This SIP revision
consists of amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20, Part I, Administrative, 9
VAC 5-20-21, Documents Incorporated by Reference, and amendments to 9
VAC 5 Chapter 40, Part II, Emission Standards, Articles 42, 48, 49, and
50.

I.  Background

Chapter 40 of Virginia’s Regulations for the Control and Abatement of
Air Pollution contains a number of rules used to enforce control
measures designed to attain and maintain the ozone air quality standard.
 The geographic applicability of these rules is defined by establishing
VOC and NOx emissions control areas in a list located in 9 VAC 5-20-206.
 The Commonwealth of Virginia’s regulations establish VOC and nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions control areas to provide the legal mechanism to
define the geographic areas in which Virginia implements control
measures to attain and maintain the air quality standards for ozone.
The emissions control areas may or may not coincide with the
nonattainment areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-204, depending upon the
necessity of the planning requirements.  Most of the Chapter 40
regulations automatically apply within all of the VOC emissions control
areas.  Some Chapter 40 rules (Articles 4, 36, 37, and 53) have
provisions that apply only to certain existing VOC and NOx emission
control areas.  Other Chapter 40 regulations were originally adopted to
apply only within certain emission control areas.

The original ozone air quality standard was a 1-hour standard.  Three
VOC and NOx emission control areas, Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads,
and Richmond, were established in Virginia in order to implement control
measures to attain the 1-hour ozone air quality standard.  On July 18,
1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per
million (ppm).  This new standard is more stringent than the previous
1-hour standard.  On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated and
classified areas for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS).  For most areas, these designations became effective
June 15, 2004.  EPA designated, as nonattainment, any area violating the
8-hour ozone NAAQS based upon the air quality data for the three years
of 2001-2003.  These were the most recent three years of data available
at the time EPA designated 8-hour areas.  The 8-hour standard replaced
the 1-hour standard on June 15, 2005 (69 FR 23996).  Accordingly, the
Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board promulgated the State 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas that took effect on August 25, 2004.  In order
to implement control measures to attain and maintain the air quality
standards for ozone, the Board proposed to expand the VOC and NOx
emissions control areas in 9 VAC 5-20-206, and extend the geographic
applicability of the VOC and NOx regulatory rules in Chapter 40 of the
regulations into the new 8-hour nonattainment areas.  On March 2, 2007
(72 FR 9441), EPA published a final rulemaking which established a new
Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area, consisting of Spotsylvania
County and Fredericksburg City, and expanded the Richmond and Hampton
Roads VOC and NOx Emission Control Areas.  On December 23, 2005 (70 FR
76165) EPA redesignated the 8-hour Fredericksburg nonattainment area to
attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS.  This revision consists of regulation
amendments that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial
product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control
Area.  These amendments are necessary to implement VOC contingency
measures of the maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions
Control Area.

II.   Summary of the SIP Revision

The May 14, 2007 SIP revision contains amendments to 9 VAC 5-20-21,
which incorporate by reference, two additional test methods and
procedures needed for 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Article 49, Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings.  These are the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3912-95, “Standard Test Method for
Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power
Plants;” and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D
4082-02, “Standard Test Method for Effects of Gamma Radiation on
Coatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.”

The May 14, 2007 revision also contains regulation amendments to 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40 that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial
product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control
Area established in 9 VAC 5-20-206

(March 2, 2007, 72 FR 9441).  These regulations presently apply only in
the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area and were based on the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules.  The OTC developed control
measures into model rules for a number of source categories and
estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing those model
rules.  These amendments to Chapter 40 are discussed below.

Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Container Spillage, Article 42

Virginia’s Portable Fuel Container Spillage regulation is being
amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control
Area.  At the present time this regulation applies only to sources
located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (June 8,
2004, 69 FR 31893).  The provisions of this regulation apply to any
source or person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures
for sale portable fuel containers or spouts in the Northern Virginia and
Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206.
 The regulation does not apply to any portable fuel container or spout
manufactured for shipment, sale and use outside of the Northern Virginia
and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas.  The regulation requires
each portable fuel container or spout sold in the Northern Virginia and
Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas to meet the following
requirements:  (1) have an automatic shut-off and closure device; (2)
contain one opening for both filling and pouring; (3) meet minimal fuel
flow rate based on nominal capacity; (4) meet a permeation standard; and
(5) have a manufacturer’s warranty against defects.  The regulation
includes exemptions, standards, testing procedures, recordkeeping, and
administrative requirements.  Compliance with the provisions of this
regulation is required no later than January 1, 2008 in the
Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.

2)  Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing,
Article 48

Virginia’s Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing regulation is being
amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control
Area.  At the present time, this regulation applies only to sources
located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (June 24,
2004, 69 FR 35253).  The provisions of this regulation apply to each
mobile equipment repair and refinishing operation located in the
Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas
designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206.  Certain provisions also apply to each
person providing or selling affected coatings.  The provisions of this
regulation do not apply if the mobile equipment repair and refinishing
operation is subject to Article 28 (9 VAC 5-40-3860 et seq.) of Chapter
40, Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Application
Systems, or Article 34 (9 VAC 5-40-4760 et seq.) of Chapter 40, Emission
Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating Application
Systems.  The provisions of this regulation also do not apply to persons
applying the coatings who do not receive compensation for the
application of the coatings, and to mobile equipment repair and
refinishing operations that use coatings required to meet military
specifications (MILSPEC) where no other existing coating can be used
that meets the provisions of this regulation.  Also included in the
regulation are definitions, standards for VOCs, compliance, test methods
and procedures, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.  Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is
required no later than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC
Emissions Control Area.

3)  Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings, Article 49

Virginia’s Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
regulation is being amended to apply within the new Fredericksburg VOC
Emissions Control Area.  At the present time, this regulation applies
only to sources located in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control
Area (May 12, 2005, 70 FR 24970).  This regulation applies to any person
who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufacturers any architectural
coating for use, as well as any person who applies or solicits the
application of any architectural coating, located in the Northern
Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas designated in 9
VAC 5-20-206.  The provisions of this regulation do not apply to the
following:  (1) any architectural coating that is sold or manufactured
for use exclusively outside of the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg
VOC Emission Control Areas, or for shipment to other manufacturers for
reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating product; or (3)
any architectural coating that is sold in a container with a volume of
one liter (1.057 quart) or less.  The regulation is also being amended
to add standards and definitions for six new coating categories:
calcimine recoaters, conversion varnishes, concrete surface retarder,
impacted immersion coatings; nuclear coatings; and thermoplastic rubber
coating and mastic.  These new coatings are listed in the Federal AIM
regulation (63 FR 48848, September 11, 1998).  Virginia’s regulation
sets specific VOC content limits in grams per liter for architectural
and industrial maintenance coatings, and contains administrative
requirements for labeling and reporting.  There are a number of test
methods that would be used to demonstrate compliance with this rule.
Some of these test methods include those promulgated by EPA and
published by the South Coast and Bay Area Air Quality Management
Districts of California, as well as the American Society for Testing and
Materials.  The test methods used to test coatings must be the most
current approved method at the time testing is performed.  Compliance
with the provisions of this regulation is required no later than January
1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.

4)  Emission Standards for Consumer Products, Article 50

Virginia’s Consumer Products Regulation is being amended to apply
within the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.  At the
present time, this regulation applies only to sources located in the
Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area (January 30, 2007, 72 FR
4207).  The rule applies to a person who sells, supplies, offers for
sale, or manufactures consumer products that contain VOCs as defined in
9 VAC 5-10-20 throughout the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC
Emissions Control Areas designated in 9 VAC 5-20-206.  This regulation
limits VOC emissions from consumer products such as adhesives, adhesive
removers, aerosol products, air fresheners, antiperspirants and
deodorants, facial toners and astringents, waxes and polishes (for cars
and floors, etc.), tile cleaners, tar removers, bug sprays, rug
cleaners, charcoal lighter fluid, disinfectants, cosmetics, and soaps.
This regulation does not apply to any consumer product manufactured in
the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas
designated in 9 VAC 5-40-7240 for shipment and use outside of these
areas.  The provisions also do not apply to a manufacturer or
distributor who sells, supplies, or offers for sale a consumer product
that does not comply with the VOC standards specified in 9 VAC 5-40-

7270 A, as long as the manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate that
both the consumer product is intended for shipment and use outside of
the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emission Control Areas, and
that the manufacturer or distributor has taken reasonable prudent
precautions to assure that the consumer product is not distributed to
those applicable VOC control areas.  The regulation sets specific VOC
content limits in percent VOCs by weight for consumer products.
Exemptions from the VOC content limits are listed in the rule.  Also
included in the regulation are definitions, innovative products,
standards and exemptions, requirements for waiver requests,
administrative requirements for labeling and reporting, test methods for
demonstrating compliance, compliance schedules, alternative control
plans, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Compliance with the provisions of this regulation is required no later
than January 1, 2008 in the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.
Article 49 is also being amended to revise the definition of
“Automotive windshield washer fluid,” to allow the higher VOC
automotive windshield washer fluid standards to also be applied to some
manual automotive windshield washing systems so that they may be used in
winter.

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) (privilege(' for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity.  The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed.  Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations.  Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents
or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney
General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law,Va.
Code Sec. 10.1-1198,  precludes granting a privilege to documents and
information (required by law,( including documents and information
(required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization
or approval,( since Virginia must (enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts. . . .(   The opinion concludes that ([r]egarding (
10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or
criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged
because such documents and information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.(

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ([t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,(  any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil
penalty.  The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that
the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of
any Federally authorized programs, since (no immunity could be afforded
from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.(

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program
consistent with the Federal requirements.  In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean
Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort.  In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV.  Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision submitted on May
14, 2007 for regulation amendments to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20 that
incorporate by reference test methods and procedures needed for 9 VAC 5
Chapter 40, Article 49, Emission Standards for Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings, and regulation amendments to Chapter 40
that extend the applicability of four consumer and commercial product
regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.
These amendments are necessary to implement VOC contingency measures
within the Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Area.  EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document.  These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use"  (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a
Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing
a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the (Attorney General(s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings( issued under the executive order.

This proposed rule, extending the applicability of four consumer and
commercial product regulations into the new Fredericksburg VOC Emissions
Control Area, does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

August 30, 2007				/s/

___________________________           ____________________________

Dated:                                                      Donald S.
Welsh,

Regional Administrator,

                                                                 Region
III.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  15


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58633-58637]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25245]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84589; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 100, Definitions; Rule 515, Execution of Orders and
Quotes; and Rule 503, Openings on the Exchange

November 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on November 9, 2018, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 100,
Definitions; Rule 515, Execution of Orders and Quotes; and Rule 503,
Openings on the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 proposes to amend certain rules in connection with the
listing and trading of non-multi-listed option products on the Exchange
that are proprietary to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend (i) Rule 100, Definitions, to adopt two new
definitions; (ii) Rule 515, Execution of Orders and Quotes, to adopt a
new price protection provision; and (iii) Rule 503, Openings on the
Exchange, to adopt new rule text for processing certain orders during
the Opening Process.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 100,
Definitions, to adopt new definitions for the terms ``Proprietary
Product'' and ``Non-Proprietary Product.'' The proposed definition of a
Proprietary Product is, ``a class of options that is listed exclusively
on the Exchange and any of its affiliates,'' while the proposed
definition of a Non-Proprietary Product is, ``a class of options that
is not a Proprietary Product.'' The Exchange believes that these
proposed new definitions will add clarity, precision, and ease of
reference to the Exchange's rules when such rules discuss different
system functionality for a particular class of options that is a
Proprietary Product versus a Non-Proprietary Product.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 515, Execution of
Orders and Quotes, so that it applies only to Non-Proprietary Products.
(The Exchange is proposing to adopt a new price protection rule
(discussed below) that will apply only to Proprietary Products.)
Currently, subsection (c)(1), Price Protection on Non-Market Maker
Orders, describes a price protection process for all non-Market Maker
\3\ orders received during a trading session. The price protection
process prevents an order from being executed beyond the price
designated in the order's price protection instructions (the ``price
protection limit''). When triggered, the price protection process will
cancel an order or the remaining contracts of an order.\4\ However, not
all order types currently available on the Exchange are eligible for
price protection, due to the nature of the order type and its intended
use. Specifically, the rule currently provides that the price
protection process set forth in Rule 515(c)(1) does not apply to
Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISO''),\5\ Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'')
orders,\6\ or Fill-or-Kill (``FOK'') orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 515(c)(1).
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 516(f).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 516(c).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 516(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the heading of subsection (c)(1)
to read, ``Price Protection on Non-Market Maker Orders in Non-
Proprietary Products'' so that it only applies to Non-Proprietary
Products. The Exchange believes that this change will help distinguish
the price protection process provided for non-Market Maker orders in
Non-Proprietary Products from the proposed price protection process for
non-Market Maker orders in Proprietary Products as discussed below.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subsection (c)(2), entitled,
``Price Protection on Non-Market Maker Orders in Proprietary
Products.'' Under this proposal the System will apply the following
price protection process to all non-Market Maker orders in Proprietary
Products received during a regular trading session that are larger
than, and priced through, the opposite side NBBO.\8\ The price
protection process provides exposure and time for market responses at
defined price levels during the price protection process. To establish
the price level, the System \9\ will calculate a protection price limit
for each order eligible for price protection by adding (subtracting) a
set number of MPVs \10\ if the order is a buy (sell) to (i) the
opposite side NBBO, (ii) the previous protection limit price, or (iii)
in certain circumstances the limit price of same side joining interest
after the expiration of the liquidity exposure process timer as
described more fully below. The number of MPVs will be determined by
the Exchange and announced to Members \11\ through a Regulatory
Circular, provided that the minimum shall be no less than two (2) MPVs
and the maximum shall be no more than twenty (20) MPVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \9\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \10\ The term MPV means Minimum Price Variation. See Exchange
Rule 510.
    \11\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The price protection process described above will not apply to
Intermarket Sweep Orders (ISOs) \12\ or Auction or Cancel (AOC)
orders.\13\ Intermarket Sweep Orders are a special order type designed
to prevent ``trade-throughs.'' \14\ ISOs are immediately executable in
the System and are not eligible for routing to another exchange. An
Auction or Cancel order is a limit order used to provide liquidity
during a specific Exchange process (such as the Opening Imbalance
process described in Rule 503) with a time in force that corresponds
with that event. AOC orders are not displayed to any market
participant, are not included in the MBBO \15\ and therefore not
eligible for trading outside of the event, may not be routed, and may
not trade at a price inferior to the away markets.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Intermarket Sweep Order (``ISO'') means a limit order for
an option series that, simultaneously with the routing of the ISO,
one or more additional ISOs, as necessary, are routed to execute
against the full displayed size of any Protected Bid, in the case of
a limit order to sell, or any Protected Offer, in the case of a
limit order to buy, for the option series with a price that is
superior to the limit price of the ISO. A Member may submit an
Intermarket Sweep Order to the Exchange only if it has
simultaneously routed one or more additional Intermarket Sweep
Orders to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected
Bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or Protected Offer, in
the case of a limit order to buy, for an options series with a price
that is superior to the limit price of the Intermarket Sweep Order.
See Exchange Rule 1400(h).
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 516(b)(4).
    \14\ Trade-through means the purchase or sale of an NMS stock
during regular trading hours, either as principal or agent, at a
price that is lower than a protected bid or higher than a protected
offer. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(77).
    \15\ The term ``MBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 516(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Price protection is provided to orders on the Exchange to prevent
executions at erroneous prices. The use of Intermarket Sweep Orders is
a key component of the trade-through exemption provided by Rule 611 of
Reg NMS \17\ and applying a price protection limit to these types of
orders may prevent them from achieving their intended purpose.
Similarly, Auction or Cancel orders are submitted for a specific
purpose and applying a price protection limit is unnecessary. AOC
orders are used to provide liquidity during a specific Exchange process
with a time in force that corresponds with the event and are not
eligible for trading outside of the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 242.611(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adopt new subsection (c)(2)(i) to
provide a Liquidity Exposure Process (``LEP'') for over-sized orders in
Proprietary Products. Interest that would be posted, managed, or that
would trade at a price more aggressive than the order's protected price
will be subject to the

LEP for oversized orders in Proprietary Products. To begin the LEP, the
System will broadcast a liquidity exposure message to all subscribers
of the Exchange's data feeds which will include the symbol, side of the
market, quantity of matched contracts, the imbalance quantity, ``must
fill'' quantity, and price. Additionally, the System will start a
Liquidity Exposure Process timer, not to exceed three (3) seconds, as
determined by the Exchange and announced via Regulatory Circular.
    All market participants can respond to the liquidity exposure
broadcast message. The System will evaluate interest received during
the Liquidity Exposure Process based on price and the side of the
market relative to the side of the market of the initiating order.
During the Liquidity Exposure Process if the Exchange receives interest
on the opposite side of the market from the initiating order that locks
or crosses the Book price of the interest subject to the LEP, the
interest will trade, with resting liquidity executed prior to joining
liquidity.
Example 1
MPV: 0.01
LEP Increment: 5

    The Exchange has two orders resting on its Book: \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Book'' means the electronic book of buy and sell
orders and quotes maintained by the System. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order 1 is to sell 10 contracts at $1.10.
    Order 2 is to sell 20 contracts at $1.20.

MBBO: 1.00(10) x 1.10(10)
NBBO: 1.00(10) x 1.10(10)

    The Exchange receives a new order (Order 3) to buy 20 contracts at
$1.20.
    When the order is received it is assigned a price protection limit
that is calculated by adding 5 MPVs to the opposite side NBBO,
therefore the price protection limit for Order 3 is $1.15.
    Order 3 buys 10 contracts from Order 1 at $1.10.
    Since Order 3 would now trade at a price ($1.20) more aggressive
than its protected price ($1.15). The System will initiate the
Liquidity Exposure Process at the protected price of $1.15.
    The System will broadcast a liquidity exposure message to all
subscribers of the Exchange's data feed, and begin a timer, not to
exceed three (3) seconds, as determined by the Exchange.
    During the Liquidity Exposure Process the Exchange receives a new
order (Order 4) to sell 10 contracts at $1.15. This order locks the
current same side Book Price of $1.15 and Order 4 sells 10 contracts to
Order 3 at $1.15, filling Order 3 and ending the Liquidity Exposure
Process.
    Order 2, sell 20 contracts at $1.20, remains on the Book.
    During the Liquidity Exposure Process if the Exchange receives
interest on the same side of the market as the initiating order that is
priced more aggressively than the Book price of the interest subject to
the LEP that also locks or crosses the opposite side NBBO, the System
will immediately terminate the timer.
Example 2
MPV: 0.01
LEP Increment: 5

    The Exchange has one order resting on its Book:
    Order 1 is to sell 10 contracts at $1.10.

MBBO: 1.00(10) x 1.10(10)
NBBO: 1.00(10) x 1.10(10)

    The Exchange receives a new order (Order 2) to buy 20 contracts at
$1.20.
    When the order is received it is assigned a price protection limit
that is calculated by adding 5 MPVs to the opposite side NBBO,
therefore the price protection limit for Order 2 is $1.15.
    Order 2 buys 10 contracts from Order 1 at $1.10.
    Since Order 2 would now trade at a price ($1.20) more aggressive
than its protected price ($1.15). The System will initiate the
Liquidity Exposure Process at the protected price of $1.15.
    During the Liquidity Exposure Process the Exchange receives a new
order (Order 3) to buy 10 contracts at $1.17. This order is more
aggressive than the Book price and crosses the opposite NBBO, therefore
the Liquidity Exposure Timer immediately ends.
Trade Allocation Following the End of the Liquidity Exposure Process
    Proposed rule 515(c)(2)(i)(B) provides that at the end of the
timer, the initiating order, resting liquidity, and any same side
joining interest will (i) be handled in accordance to Exchange Rule
515, Execution of Orders and Quotes, or (ii) trade against opposite
side interest in the following sequence: Resting interest will be
filled first, followed by joining interest in the order it was
received. Opposite side interest will be allocated in accordance to the
Exchange's standard allocation, as described in Exchange Rule 514,
Priority of Quotes and Orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend subsection (f)(2)(vii)(B)(5) of
Rule 503, Openings on the Exchange. Currently the rule provides that if
there is an opening transaction, any unexecuted contracts from the
imbalance not traded or routed will be cancelled back to the entering
Member if the price for those contracts crosses the opening price,
unless the Member that submitted the original order has instructed the
Exchange in writing to re-enter the remaining size, in which case the
remaining size will be automatically submitted as a new order. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the rule to adopt a new provision to
state that unexecuted contracts that are from a non-Market Maker order
in a Proprietary Product, in which case the remaining size will be
placed on the Book with a protected price equal to the opening price
and the Liquidity Exposure Process, as defined in Exchange Rule
515(c)(2)(i), will begin immediately after the Opening Process is
complete.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it
is 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 mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting definitions for Proprietary
Products and Non-Proprietary Products on the Exchange adds additional
detail to the Exchange's Rulebook and promotes transparency and clarity
in the Exchange's rules. The new proposed definitions allow the
Exchange to distinguish between two separate and distinct classes of
options listed on the Exchange and to describe rules that may be
applicable to one class and not the other. The Exchange believes its
proposal will promote just and equitable principles of trade and 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 mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
by creating a clear distinction between Proprietary and Non-Proprietary
Products on the Exchange and the rules applicable to each separately
and collectively.

    The price protection process for non-Market Maker orders in
Proprietary Products described herein removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
providing price protection and order handling to over-sized orders in
Proprietary Products. The Exchange believes that Proprietary Product
and Non-Proprietary Product orders should have separate price
protection processes due to the inherent differences between these
classes of options. The price protection process for non-Market Maker
orders in Non-Proprietary Products cancels the order or the remaining
contracts of an order when triggered.\21\ Non-Proprietary Products, by
definition, may be listed on multiple venues, therefore the Exchange
believes returning these orders to the Member for analysis and
evaluation to be in the best interest of the Member as the Member may
choose to re-price and re-submit the order to the Exchange or to route
the order to another market center entirely. Conversely, Proprietary
Products, by definition, may be exclusively traded on the Exchange,
therefore a new price protection process is warranted as canceling non-
Market Maker orders in Proprietary Products whose price protection
limit has been triggered may not provide a benefit to the Member, as
there is no other market center from which to seek an execution.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 4.
    \22\ The Exchange notes that a Member who believes that an
execution has occurred at an erroneous price may avail themselves of
the protections provided in Exchange Rule 521, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protects investors and the public interest, as the proposed
price protection process and order handling for over-sized orders in
Proprietary Products is similar to drill-through price protection
offered on other exchanges. The Exchange's proposed Liquidity Exposure
Process operates in a similar fashion to the drill through protection
provided by the Cboe Exchange.\23\ The Cboe Exchange will establish a
price threshold for an order for a buy as a predetermined amount of
minimum price intervals above the NBO,\24\ or if the order is a sell,
as a predetermined amount of minimum price intervals below the NBB.\25\
(which may be no less than two minimum increment ticks in either
case).\26\ If the unexecuted portion of an order would execute at a
subsequent price through the threshold price (higher for a buy and
lower for a sell), also known as the drill through price, the System
will not automatically execute that part of the order and will instead
expose that portion at the better of the NBBO and the drill through
price. The exposure period (which the Exchange determines and announces
via Regulatory Circular and will not be in excess of three seconds)
\27\ provides an additional opportunity for execution of these orders
(or unexecuted portion). One difference is that the Cboe will cancel
the order (or any unexecuted portion) that does not execute during that
time period,\28\ whereas under the Exchange's proposal the order will
not be canceled, as the Exchange does not believe it is the best
interest of the Member to return an order in a Proprietary Product that
ultimately may only be executed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cboe Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B).
    \24\ National Best Offer.
    \25\ National Best Bid.
    \26\ See Cboe Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B)(I).
    \27\ See Cboe Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(v)(B)(III).
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79244 (November 4,
2016), 81 FR 79063 (November 10, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed change to the Opening
Process for when there is an opening transaction in a Proprietary
Product to assign such unexecuted contracts with a protected price
equal to the opening price and to subject the order to the Liquidity
Exposure Process promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors
and the public interest. Specifically, under the Exchange's current
rule, during the Exchange's Opening Process as described in Rule
503(f)(2)(vii)(B)(5), if there is an opening transaction, any
unexecuted contracts from the imbalance not traded or routed are
cancelled back to the entering Member if the price for those contracts
crosses the opening price. The Exchange believes that in this situation
canceling the unexecuted contracts back to the Member allows the Member
the opportunity to reevaluate its order and possibly resubmit the order
to the Exchange with a different price or to submit the order to
another market center completely. If, however, the order was for a
Proprietary Product, canceling the unexecuted contracts back to the
Member would not be in the Member's best interest as there may be no
other market center for the Member to re-send the order. Therefore,
under the proposed rule if the unexecuted contracts are from a non-
Market Maker order in a Proprietary Product, the remaining contracts
will be placed on the Book with a protected price equal to the opening
price and the Liquidity Exposure Process will begin immediately after
the Opening Process is complete. By definition Proprietary Products may
be exclusively listed on the Exchange and the Exchange believes it is
in the best interest of the investor to provide a mechanism by which an
investors' order in a Proprietary Product may ultimately be filled.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on inter-market competition as the proposed rule changes are
designed to facilitate the handling of orders in Proprietary Products
on the Exchange. By definition Proprietary Products may be listed
exclusively on the Exchange, and therefore have no impact on inter-
market competition.
    The Exchange's proposed adoption of definitions for Proprietary
Products and Non-Proprietary Products adds clarity and precision to the
Exchange's rules. The Exchange's proposed adoption of a price
protection process and management process for over-sized orders in
Proprietary Products is designed to benefit market participants that
transact in Proprietary Products on the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule changes will benefit investors and the
marketplace as a whole.
    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intra-market competition as the Rules
apply equally to all Exchange Members.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-MIAX-2018-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2018-35. 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-MIAX-2018-35, and should be submitted on
or before December 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25245 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 49508]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-1865-000]

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 27, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19653 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 68871]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27327]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 104; SEC File No. 270-411, OMB Control No. 3235-0465.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 104 of Regulation M (17
CFR 242.104), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 104--Stabilizing and Other Activities in Connection with an
Offering--permits stabilizing by a distribution participant during a
distribution so long as the distribution participant discloses
information to the market and investors. This rule requires disclosure
in offering materials of the potential stabilizing transactions and
that the distribution participant inform the market when a stabilizing
bid is made. It also requires the distribution participants (i.e. the
syndicate manager) to maintain information regarding syndicate covering
transactions and penalty bids and disclose such information to the
Self-Regulatory Organization.
    There are approximately 795 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 159 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent
makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes approximately
0.20 hours (12 minutes) to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 159 hours. The total estimated internal labor compliance
cost for the respondents is approximately $10,017.00, resulting in an
estimated internal labor cost of compliance for the respondent per
response of approximately $12.60 (i.e., $10,017/795 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: November 8, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27327 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50065-50068]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0660]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Jacksonville Sea and Sky Spectacular, Atlantic
Ocean; Jacksonville Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Jacksonville Beach, Florida
during the Jacksonville Sea and Sky Spectacular air show. The event is
scheduled to take place from Friday, October 19, 2012, through Sunday,
October 21, 2012. This temporary safety zone is necessary for the
safety of air show participants, participant vessels, spectators, and
the general public during the event. Persons and vessels will be
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Jacksonville or their designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 7, 2012. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0660 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Robert Butts, Sector
Jacksonville Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone
904-564-7563, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FR Federal Register
    NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0660) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0660) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the

Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before August 10, 2012, using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards
associated with airborne acrobatic maneuvers over the navigable waters
of the United States.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On October 19, 2012, through October 21, 2012, the city of
Jacksonville will host an air show event over the Atlantic Ocean in
Jacksonville Beach, FL. In recent years, there have been unfortunate
instances of jets and planes crashing during performances at air shows.
Along with a jet or plane crash, there is typically a wide area of
scattered debris that can damage property and could cause significant
injury or death to mariners observing the air shows.
    The proposed rule would establish a safety zone that will encompass
certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean near Jacksonville Beach, Florida.
The safety zone is necessary to protect the general public from hazards
associated with the air show. The safety zone would be enforced from 10
a.m. to 4 p.m. daily on October 19, 2012, through October 21, 2012. All
persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in
the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring
in, or remaining within the safety zone, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone by contacting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The
Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant Regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The special safety zone will be enforced for
only six hours on each of the three days; (2) although persons and
vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the event area without authorization from the Captain of
the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate
in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the event area during the enforcement period if authorized by the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative; and
(4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special
local regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial
number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that
portion of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the safety zone from
10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily on October 19, 2012, through October 21, 2012.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced
during the specified operating hours of the event. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0660 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0660  Safety Zone; Jacksonville Sea and Sky Spectacular,
Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a safety zone.
All waters of the Atlantic Ocean located east of Jacksonville Beach,
Florida encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following
points: starting at Point 1 in position 30[deg]15'52.3'' N,
081[deg]23'0.18'' W; thence East to Point 2 in position
30[deg]15'57.91'' N, 081[deg]22'24.22'' W; thence North to Point 3 in
position 30[deg]18'40.81'' N, 081[deg]22'57.97'' W; thence West to
Point 4 in position 30[deg]18'35.19'' N, 081[deg]23'33.93''; thence
South back to origin.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville
or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization

must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date and Enforcement Periods. This rule is effective
from 10 a.m. on October 19, 2012, through 4 p.m. on October 21, 2012.
This rule will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 19,
2012 through October 21, 2012.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
R.E. Holmes,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2012-20355 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32279]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-490-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on May 20, 2014, Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar), 333 South State Street, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah
84145, filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to replace and
upgrade an existing compressor engine at Questar's Coleman Compressor
Station located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, under authorization
issued to Questar in Docket No. CP82-491-000, all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to L.
Bradley Burton, General Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs and FERC
Compliance Officer, Questar Company, 333 South State Street, P.O. Box
45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Questar proposes to upgrade the Compressor Unit No. 2
engine at Coleman Compressor Station by replacing the existing 2,920
horsepower (hp) with a 3,432 hp engine. The estimated cost of the
project is $1,589,604.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: May 29, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12935 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P