[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76645-76650]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26512]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79184; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend EDGX Rule 21.12, Clearing Member Give Up

October 28, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 19, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 21.12 in order to
codify the requirement that for each transaction in which the User \3\
participates, the User must give up the name of the Clearing Member \4\
through which the transaction will be cleared (``give up'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A User is defined as ``any Options member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access).'' See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).
    \4\ A Clearing Member is defined as ``an Options Member that is
self-clearing or an Options Member that clears EDGX Options
Transactions for other Members of EDGX Options.'' See Exchange Rule
16.1(a)(15). An Option Member is defined as ``a firm, or
organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to
Chapter XVII of these Rules for purposes of participating in options
trading on EDGX Options as an `Options Order Entry Firm' or `Options
Market Maker.' '' See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 21.12 (Clearing Member Give
Up) to expand upon the procedure related to the ``give up'' of a
Clearing Member by Exchange Users. The Exchange believes that this
proposal would result in the fair and reasonable use of resources by
both the Exchange and the User. In addition, the proposed change would
align the Exchange with competing options exchanges that have adopted
rules consistent with this proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75642 (August 7,
2015), 80 FR 48594 (August 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-55) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending
Rule 961 To Establish Exchange Rules Governing the Give Up of a
Clearing Member by Users and Conforming Changes to Rules 960 and
954NY); 72668 (July 24, 2014), 79 FR 44229 (July 30, 2014) (SR-CBOE-
2014-048) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
``Give Up'' Process, the Process by which a Trading Permit Holder
``Gives Up'' or Selects and Indicates the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Responsible for the clearance of an Exchange transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Under current Exchange rules, Users entering transactions on the
Exchange must either be a Clearing Member or must establish a clearing
arrangement with a Clearing Member, and must have a Letter of Guarantee
issued by a Clearing Member. In addition, under current Rule 21.12, a
User must give up the name of the Clearing Member through which each
transaction will be cleared. Every Clearing Member accepts financial
responsibility for all EGDX Options transactions made by the guaranteed
User pursuant to Rule 22.8(b) (Terms of Letter of Guarantee). The
Exchange believes the proposed amendment will result in a more
structured and coherent streamlined give up process.

Designated Give Ups and Guarantors
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.12 by replacing the current
rule text with details regarding the give up procedure for a User
executing transactions on the Exchange. As amended, Rule 21.12 would
provide that a User may only give up a Designated Give Up or its
Guarantor, as those roles would be defined in the Rule.
    Specifically, amended Rule 21.12(b)(1) would define the term
Designated Give Up as any Clearing Member that a User (other than a
Market Maker \6\) identifies to the Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing
Member the User requests the ability to give up. To designate a
Designated Give Up, a User must submit written notification to the
Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange
(``Notification Form''). A copy of the proposed Notification Form is
included with this filing in Exhibit 3. Similarly, should a User no
longer want the ability to give up a particular Designated Give Up, the
User would have to submit written notification to the Exchange, in a
form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of this rule, Market Maker refers to Options
Members acting in the capacity of Market Maker and includes all
Exchange Market Maker capacities e.g., Primary Market Makers. As
explained below, Market Makers give up Guarantors that have executed
a Letter of Guarantee on behalf of the Marker Maker, pursuant to
Rule 22.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, as proposed, a User may designate any
Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up, and there would be no maximum
number of Designated Give Ups that a User can identify. The Exchange
would notify a Clearing Member, in writing and as soon as practicable,
of each User that has identified it as a Designated Give Up. The
Exchange, however, would not accept any instructions, and would not
give effect to any previous instructions, from a Clearing Member not to
permit a User to designate the Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up.
Further, the Exchange notes that there is no subjective evaluation of a
User's list of proposed Designated Give Ups by the Exchange. Rather,
the Exchange proposes to process each list as submitted and ensure that
the Clearing Members identified as Designated Give Ups are in fact
current Clearing Members, as well as confirm that the Notification
Forms are complete and accurate, with emphasis on the accuracy of the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') numbers listed for each Clearing
Member.
    As amended, Rule 21.12(b)(2) would define the term Guarantor as a
Clearing Member that has issued a Letter of Guarantee for the executing
User, pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange \7\ that are in effect at
the time of the execution of the applicable trade. An executing User
may give up its Guarantor without such Guarantor being a Designated
Give Up. The Exchange's Rule 22.8 provides that a Letter of Guarantee
is required to be issued and filed by each Clearing Member through
which a User clears transactions. Accordingly, a Market Maker would
only be enabled to give up a Guarantor that had executed a Letter of
Guarantee on its behalf pursuant to Rule 22.8. Thus, Market Makers
would not identify any Designated Give Ups. As noted above, amended
Rule 21.12 would provide that a User may give up only (i) the name of a
Clearing Member that has previously been identified and processed by
the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for that User, if not a Market
Maker; or (ii) its Guarantor.\8\ This proposed requirement would be
enforced by the Exchange's trading systems. Specifically, the Exchange
has configured its trading systems to only accept orders from a User
that identifies a Designated Give Up or Guarantor for that User, and
would reject any order entered by a User that designates a give up that
is not at the time a Designated Give Up or a Guarantor of the User.\9\
The Exchange notes that it would notify a User in writing when an
identified Designated Give Up becomes effective (i.e., when a Clearing
Member that has been identified by the User as a Designated Give Up,
has been enabled by the Exchange's trading systems to be given up). A
Guarantor for a User, by virtue of having an effective Letter of
Guarantee on file with the Exchange, would be enabled to be given up
for that User without any further action by the User. The Exchange
notes that this configuration (i.e., the trading systems accepting only
orders that identify a Designated Give Up or a Guarantor) is intended
to help reduce keypunch errors (errors involving erroneous data entry),
and prevent the User from mistakenly giving up the name of a Clearing
Member that it does not have the ability to give up a trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 22.8 (Letters of Guarantee).
    \8\ As described below, amended Rule 21.12 (f) provides that a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor may, under certain circumstances,
reject a trade on which it is given up and another Clearing Member
may agree to accept the subject trade.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptance of a Trade
    The Exchange proposes in amended Rule 21.12(e) (Acceptance of a
Trade) that a Designated Give Up and a Guarantor may, in certain
circumstances, determine not to accept a trade on which its name was
given up. If a Designated Give Up or a Guarantor determines not to
accept a trade, the proposed Rule would provide that it may reject the
trade in accordance with the procedures described more fully below
under amended Rule 21.12(f) (Procedures to Reject a Trade). As
proposed, a Designated Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on
which its name was given up so long as it believes in good faith that
it has a valid reason not to accept the trade and follows the
procedures to reject a trade in proposed Rule 21.12(f).\10\ The
Exchange also proposes to provide that a Guarantor may opt to not
accept and thereby reject, a non-Market Maker trade on which its name
was given up, provided that the following steps are completed: (i)
Another Clearing Member agrees to be the give up on the trade (``New
Clearing Member''); (ii) the New Clearing Member has notified both the
Exchange and executing User in writing of its intent to accept the
trade; and (iii) the procedures in proposed Rule 21.12(f) are followed.
In addition, the give up must be changed to the New Clearing Member
that has agreed to accept the trade in accordance with the procedures
in Rule 21.12(f). A Guarantor may not reject a trade given up by a
Market Maker. The Exchange notes that only a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor whose name was initially given up on a trade is permitted to
reject the trade, subject to the conditions noted above. The New
Clearing Member or Guarantor that becomes the give up on a rejected
trade may not also reject the trade.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An example of a valid reason to reject a trade may be that
the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that particular
trade.
    \11\ A New Clearing Member cannot later reject the trade.
Requiring the New Clearing Member to provide notice to the Exchange
of its intent to accept the trade and prohibiting the New Clearing
Member from later rejecting the trade would provide finality to the
trade and ensure that the trade is not repeatedly reassigned from
one Clearing Member to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedures To Reject a Trade
    The Exchange proposes to include in amended Rule 21.12 procedures
that must be followed and completed in order for a Designated Give Up
or Guarantor to reject a trade. Specifically, a Designated Give Up can
only change the give up to (1) another Clearing Member that has agreed
to be the give up on the subject trade, provided the New Clearing
Member has notified the Exchange and the executing User in writing of
its intent to accept the trade in the form and manner prescribed by

the Exchange; or (2) a Guarantor for the executing User, provided the
Designated Give Up has notified the Guarantor in writing that it is
changing the give up on the trade to the Guarantor.\12\ Further, as
proposed, a Guarantor can only reject a non-Market Maker trade \13\ for
which its name was the initial give up by a User and change the give up
to another Clearing Member that has agreed to be the give up on the
subject trade, provided the New Clearing Member has notified the
Exchange and the executing User in writing of its intent to accept the
trade (by filling out a Give-Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing
Member, as described below). A Guarantor that becomes the give up on a
trade as a result of the Designated Give Up rejecting the trade is
prohibited from not accepting or rejecting the trade. This prohibition
would provide finality to the trade and ensure that the trade is not
repeatedly reassigned from one Clearing Member to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Guarantor would not need to notify the Exchange of its
intent to accept the trade.
    \13\ A Guarantor of a User that is a Market Maker may not reject
a trade for which its name was given up in relation to such Market
Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, a Guarantor may only reject a non-Market Maker trade
for which its name was the initial give up by a User if another
Clearing Member has agreed to be the give up on the trade and has
notified the Exchange and executing User in writing of its intent to
accept the trade. If a Guarantor of a User decides to reject a trade on
the trade date, it must follow the same procedures to change the give
up as would be followed by a Designated Give Up. The ability to make
any changes, either by the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, to the give
up pursuant to this procedure would end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time,
as defined below. Finally, once the give up on a trade has been
changed, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor making the change must
immediately thereafter notify in writing the Exchange, the parties to
the trade and the Clearing Member given up of the change.
Rejection on Trade Date
    As proposed, a trade may only be rejected on (i) the trade date or
(ii) the business day following the trade date (``T+1'') (an exception
would be transactions in expiring options series on the last trading
day prior to expiration, which may not be rejected on T+1). If, on the
trade date, a Designated Give Up decides to reject a trade, or another
Clearing Member agrees to be the give up on a trade for which a
Guarantor's name was given up, the Exchange proposes that the rejecting
Designated Give Up or Guarantor must notify, as soon as possible in
writing, the executing User or its designated agent, and attempt to
resolve the disputed give up. This requirement puts the executing User
on notice that the give up on the trade may be changed and provides the
executing User and Designated Give Up or Guarantor an opportunity to
resolve the dispute. The Exchange notes that a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor may request from the Exchange the contact information of the
executing User or its designated agent for any trade it intends to
reject. Following notification to the executing User on the trade date,
a Designated Give Up or Guarantor may request the ability from the
Exchange to change the give up on the trade, in a form and manner
prescribed by the Exchange (``Give-Up Change Form''). A copy of the
proposed Give-Up Change Form is included with this filing in Exhibit 3.
Provided that the Exchange is able to process the request prior to the
trade input cutoff time established by the OCC (or the applicable later
time if the Exchange receives and is able to process a request to
extend its time of final trade submission to the OCC) (``Trade Date
Cutoff Time''), the Exchange would provide the Designated Give Up or
Guarantor the ability to make the change to the give up on the trade to
either (1) another Clearing Member or, as applicable, (2) the executing
User's Guarantor.
Rejection on T+1
    The Exchange acknowledges that some clearing firms may not
reconcile their trades until after the Trade Date Cutoff Time. A
clearing firm, therefore, may not realize that a valid reason exists to
not accept a particular trade until after the close of the trading day
or until the following morning. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
establish a procedure for a Designated Give Up or Guarantor of a User
that is not a Market Maker to reject a trade on the following trade day
(``T+1'').\14\ The Exchange notes that a separate procedure must be
established for T+1 changes because to effectively change the give up
on a trade on T+1 an offsetting reversal must occur--as opposed to
merely identifying a different Clearing Member on the trade. Consistent
with amended Rule 21.12(f), a Designated Give Up or Guarantor \15\ that
wishes to reject a trade on T+1 would have to notify the executing User
in writing, and attempt to resolve the dispute. In addition, a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor may contact the Exchange and request
the ability to reject the trade on T+1. Provided that the Exchange
receives the request prior to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on T+1
(``T+1 Cutoff Time''), the Exchange would provide the Designated Give
Up or Guarantor the ability to enter trade records into the Exchange's
systems that would effect a transfer of the trade to another Clearing
Member. As noted above, if a New Clearing Member agrees to the give up
on a trade, it would be required to inform the Exchange of its
acceptance via the Give-Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Members.
A Guarantor that becomes the new give up on T+1 would not need to
notify the Exchange of its intent to accept the trade, nor would it
need to submit any notification or form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange proposes that no changes to the give up on
trades in expiring options series that take place on the last
trading day prior to their expiration may take place on T+1. Rather,
a Designated Give Up or Guarantor may only reject these transactions
on the trade date until the Trade Date Cutoff Time in accordance
with the trade date procedures described above.
    \15\ The Exchange again notes that, as proposed, only a
Guarantor whose name was initially given up is permitted to reject a
trade (i.e., a Guarantor cannot reject a trade on T+1 for which it
has become the give up as a result of a Designated Give Up not
accepting the trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Designated Give Up however, would be required to provide
written notice to the Guarantor that it will be making this change on
T+1. The Exchange notes that the ability for either a Designated Give
Up or Guarantor to make these changes would end at the T+1 Cutoff Time,
and would provide finality and certainty as to which Clearing Member
will be the give up on the subject trade. In addition, once any change
to the give up has been made, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor
making the change would be required to immediately thereafter notify,
in writing, the Exchange, the parties to the trade and the Clearing
Member given up, of the change. As discussed above, the Exchange
proposes to allow Users that are not Market Makers to identify any
Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. The Exchange's proposal does
not permit a Clearing Member to provide the Exchange instructions to
prohibit a particular User from giving up the Clearing Member's name.
This limitation prevents the Exchange from being placed in the position
of arbiter among the Clearing Member, the User and the customer. The
Exchange recognizes, however, that Users should not be given the
ability to give up any Clearing Member without also providing a method
of recourse to those Clearing Members which, for the prescribed

reasons discussed above,\16\ should not be obligated to clear certain
trades for which they are given up. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to provide Designated Give Ups and Guarantors the ability to
reject a trade, provided each has a good faith basis for doing so.
Ultimately, however, the trade must clear with a clearing firm and
there must be finality to the trade. The Exchange believes that the
executing User's Guarantor, absent a Clearing Member that agrees to
accept the trade, should become the give up on any trade which a
Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance with these
proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of having
issued a Letter of Guarantee, has already accepted financial
responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by the executing
User. The Exchange, however, does not want to prevent a Clearing Member
that agrees to accept the trade from being able to do so, and
accordingly, the Exchange also provides that a New Clearing Member may
become the give up on a trade in accordance with the procedure
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Give Up Changes
    The Exchange also proposes in Rule 21.12(g) three scenarios in
which a give up on a transaction may be changed without Exchange
involvement. First, if an executing User has the ability through an
Exchange system to do so, it could change the give up on a trade to
another Designated Give Up or its Guarantor. The Exchange notes that
Users often make these changes when, for example, there is a keypunch
error. The ability of the executing User to make any such change would
end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time.\17\ Next, the modified rule would
provide that, if a Designated Give Up has the ability to do so, it may
change the give up on a transaction for which it was given up to (i)
another Clearing Member affiliated with the Designated Give Up or (ii)
a Clearing Member for which the Designated Give Up is a back office
agent. The ability to make such a change would end at the Trade Date
Cutoff Time. The procedures to reject a trade, as set forth in proposed
Rule 21.12(f) and described above, would not apply in these instances.
The Exchange notes that often Clearing Members themselves have the
ability to change a give up on a trade for which it was given up to
another Clearing Member affiliate or Clearing Member for which the
Designated Give Up is a back office agent. Therefore, Exchange
involvement in these instances is not necessary. In addition, the
proposed rule provides that if both a Designated Give Up or Guarantor
and a Clearing Member have the ability through an Exchange system to do
so, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor and Clearing Member may each
enter trade records into the Exchange's systems on T+1 that would
effect a transfer of the trade in a non-expired option series from that
Designated Give Up to that Clearing Member. Likewise, if a Guarantor of
a User trade (that is not a Market Maker trade) and a Clearing Member
have the ability through an Exchange system to do so, the Guarantor and
Clearing Member may each enter trade records into the Exchange's
systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-
expired option series from that Guarantor to that Clearing Member. The
Designated Give Up or Guarantor could not make any such change after
the T+1 Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor must notify, in writing, the Exchange and all the parties to
the trade, of any such change made pursuant to this provision. This
notification alerts the parties and the Exchange that a change to the
give up has been made. Finally, the Designated Give Up or Guarantor
would be responsible for monitoring the trade and ensuring that the
other Clearing Member has entered its side of the transaction timely
and correctly. If either a Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) or
Clearing Member cannot themselves enter trade records into the
Exchange's systems to effect a transfer of the trade from one to the
other, the Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) may request the ability
from the Exchange to enter both sides of the transaction in accordance
with amended Rule 21.12(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ After that time, the User would no longer have the ability
to make this type of change, as the trade will have been submitted
to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responsibility
    The Exchange proposes Rule 21.12(h) to state that a Clearing Member
would be financially responsible for all trades for which it is the
give up at the Applicable Cutoff Time (for purposes of the proposed
rule, the ``Applicable Cutoff Time'' shall refer to the T+1 Cutoff Time
for non-expiring option series and to the Trade Date Cutoff Time for
expiring option series). The Exchange notes, however, that nothing in
the proposed rule shall preclude a different party from being
responsible for the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant
to OCC Rules, any agreement between the applicable parties, other
applicable rules and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or
otherwise.\18\ Moreover, in processing a request to provide a
Designated Give Up the ability to change a give up on a trade, the
Exchange would not consider or validate whether the Designated Give Up
has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in relation to having a
good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or
having notified the executing User and attempted to resolve the
disputed give up prior to changing the give up. Rather, upon request,
the Exchange would always provide a Designated Give Up or Guarantor the
ability to change the give up or to reject a trade pursuant to the
proposed Rule so long as the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, and New
Clearing Member, if applicable, have provided a completed set of give
up Change Forms within the prescribed time period. The Exchange notes
that given the inherent time constraints in making a change to a give
up on a transaction, the Exchange would not be able to adequately
consider the above-mentioned requirements and make a determination
within the prescribed period of time. Rather, the Exchange would
examine trades for which a give up was changed pursuant to
subparagraphs (e) and (f) after the fact to ensure compliance with the
requirements set forth in amended Rule 21.12. Particularly, the
Exchange notes that the give up Change Forms that Designated Give Ups,
Guarantors and New Clearing Members must submit would help to ensure
that the Exchange obtains, in a uniform format, the information that it
needs to monitor and regulate this Rule and these give up changes in
particular. This information, for example, would better allow the
Exchange to determine whether the Designated Give Up had a valid reason
to reject the trade, as well as assist the Exchange in cross checking
and confirming the accuracy of the statements made by the Designated
Give Up or Guarantor with its conduct (e.g., check that the New
Clearing Member identified in the give up Change Form was the Clearing
Member that actually was identified on the trade as the give up).
Additionally, the proposed Rule does not preclude these factors from
being considered in a different forum (e.g., court or arbitration), nor
does it preclude any Clearing Member that

violates any provision of amended Rule 21.12 from being subject to
disciplinary actions in accordance with Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 21.12
(``Nothing herein will be deemed to preclude the clearance of
Exchange transactions by a non-User pursuant to the By-Laws of the
Options Clearing Corporation so long as a Clearing Member who is a
User is also designated as having responsibility under these Rules
for the clearance of such transactions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation of the
proposed rule change effective November 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\20\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, detailing in the rules how Users would give up Clearing
Members and how Clearing Members may reject a trade provides
transparency and operational certainty. The Exchange believes
additional transparency removes a potential impediment to, and would
contribute to perfecting, the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, would protect investors and
the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange notes that amended Rule
21.12 requires Users to adhere to a standardized process to ensure a
seamless administration of the Rule. For example, all notifications
relating to a change in give up must be made in writing. The Exchange
believes that these requirements will aid the Exchange's efforts to
monitor and regulate Users and Clearing Members as they relate to
amended Rule 21.12 and changes in give ups, thereby protecting
investors and the public interest.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed give up rule
strikes the right balance between the various views and interests of
market participants. For example, although the rule allows Users that
are not Market Makers to identify any Clearing Member as a Designated
Give Up, it also provides that Clearing Members would receive notice of
any User that has designated it as a Designated Give Up and provides
for a procedure for a Clearing Member to reject a trade in accordance
with the Rules, both on the trade date and T+1.
    The Exchange recognizes that Users should not be given the ability
to give up any Clearing Members without also providing a method of
recourse to those Clearing Members which, for the prescribed reasons
discussed above, should not be obligated to clear certain trades for
which they are given up. The Exchange believes that providing
Designated Give Ups the ability to reject a trade within a reasonable
amount of time is consistent with the Act as, pursuant to the proposed
rule, the Designated Give Ups may only do so if they have a valid
reason and because ultimately, the trade can always be assigned to the
Guarantor of the executing User if a New Clearing Member is not willing
to step in and accept the trade. A trade must clear with a Clearing
Member and there must be finality to the trade. Absent a New Clearing
Member that agrees to accept the trade, the Exchange believes that the
executing User's Guarantor, should become the give up on any trade that
a Designated Give Up determines to reject, in accordance with the
proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of having
issued a Letter of Guarantee, has already accepted financial
responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by the executing
User. Therefore, amended Rule 21.12 is reasonable and provides
certainty that a Clearing Member will always be responsible for a
trade, which protects investors and the public interest. The Exchange
notes that amended Rule 21.12 does not preclude a different party than
the party given up from being responsible for the trade outside of the
Rules of the Exchange, pursuant to OCC Rules, any agreement between the
applicable parties, other applicable rules and regulations,
arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise. The Exchange acknowledges
that it would not consider whether the Designated Give Up has satisfied
the requirements of this Rule in relation to having a good faith belief
that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or having notified the
executing User and attempting to resolve the disputed give up prior to
changing the give up, due to inherent time restrictions. However, the
Exchange believes investor and public interest are still protected as
the Exchange will still examine trades for which a give up was changed
pursuant to subparagraphs (e) and (f) of amended Rule 21.12 after the
fact to ensure compliance with the requirements set forth in the Rule.
As noted above, the implementation of a standardized process and the
requirement that certain notices be in writing would assist monitoring
any give up changes and enforcing amended Rule 21.12.
    Further, the Exchange notes that the Rule does not preclude these
factors from being considered in a different forum (e.g., court or
arbitration) nor does it preclude any User or Clearing Member that
violates any provision of amended Rule 21.12 from being subject to
disciplinary actions by the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change would impose an unnecessary burden on
competition because it would apply equally to all similarly situated
Users. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed changes make
the Exchange more attractive for trading, market participants trading
on other exchanges can always elect to become Users on the Exchange to
take advantage of the trading opportunities. Thus, the proposed rule
change will promote competition because it will allow the Exchange to
offer its Users similar features as are available at other exchanges
and thus further compete with other exchanges for order flow.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

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

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\23\ A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
filing.\24\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is designed to ensure that there will always be a Clearing Member that
will be financially responsible for a trade, which should promote
greater operational certainty and facilitate cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in clearing transactions. In
addition, the Commission believes that the proposal addresses the role
of different parties involved in the give up process in a balanced
manner and is designed to provide a fair and reasonable methodology for
the give up process. The Commission notes that it has considered a
substantially similar proposed rule change filed by the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT''), which it approved after a notice and comment period.\26\ This
proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel issues from those
considered in the CBOE and NYSE MKT proposals. Based on the foregoing,
the Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative date so
that the proposal may take effect upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 5.
    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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) of the Act \28\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-58 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-BatsEDGX-2016-58. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-58, and should
be submitted on or before November 25, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26512 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6613-6617]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002 Notice 4; FRL-8523-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Industrial Waste Control
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Industrial Waste
Control Superfund Site (Site), located near Fort Smith, Arkansas from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR
Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Arkansas, through the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed and, therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is
not appropriate.

DATES: This direct final notice of deletion will be effective April 7,
2008 unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 6, 2008. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final notice of deletion in the Federal Register informing the
public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002 Notice 4, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: (Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments).
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Donn Walters, Community Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-
533-3508.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002 Notice 4.
    EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online 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, disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will

automatically be 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 docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

information repositories.
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site
is available for viewing and copying during central standard time at
the Site information repositories located at: U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
appointment only Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to
4 p.m.; Fort Smith Public Library, 3201 Rogers Avenue, Ft. Smith, AR
72903,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Sunday, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 5301
Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Ghose M.S., P.E., Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RA), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-533-3508 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 6 office is publishing this direct final notice of
deletion of the Industrial Waste Control Superfund Site from the NPL.
    The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk
to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list
of those sites. As described in Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites
deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions
at a deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of
intent to delete. This action will be effective April 7, 2008 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by March 6, 2008 on this document. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
the deletion will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate,
prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process
on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Industrial Waste Control
Superfund Site, and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA actions to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a
determination to delete a Site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund
Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA Section
121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site
be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains
protective of public health and the environment. If new information
becomes available that indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from
a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the
NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with ADEQ on the deletion of the Site from
the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.
    (2) ADEQ concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrent with publication of this direct final notice of
deletion, a notice of availability of the parallel notice of intent to
delete published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register is being published in a major local newspaper of general
circulation at or near the Site, and is being distributed to
appropriate federal, state and local government officials and other
interested parties. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in
the Site information repositories identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the
comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational
purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP
states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions should future conditions
warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting
this Site from the NPL.

Site Location

    The IWC Site is 8 miles southeast of Ft. Smith, in Sebastian
County, Arkansas. It is 1 mile west of the town of Jenny Lind and 4.5
miles east of the town of Bonanza. It can be reached by taking Highway
71 approximately 8 miles south of Ft. Smith, turning east on Bonanza
Rd. for about one mile then turning south on the second entrance to
Racetrack Road. The Site is the eight acre tract of elevated land
enclosed within a six foot chain link fence at the south end of the
Racetrack Rd loop less than a mile from Bonanza Rd.

Site History

    The Site is located in a historic coal mining region which dates
back to the late 1800's. There is an extensive network of abandoned
underground coal mines north of the Site operated from the 1890s
through 1932. In the mid-1940's, a surface strip mine was placed in
operation at the Site to recover coal which was too shallow to mine by
underground methods. The extent of the final narrow strip mine was
approximately 40 feet deep and 2,000 feet long. The western half of
this strip mine was ultimately converted into a commercial industrial
waste landfill in the late 1960s.
    A full permit to receive industrial waste at the Site was issued by
the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (currently
known as the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality or ADEQ) to
GNJ, Inc. on May 24, 1974. In August of 1974 the Site was sold and
renamed the Industrial Waste Control Landfill (IWC).
    The IWC operations included the landfill and surface impoundments.
The facility received waste from industrial plants in and around Ft.
Smith. The surface impoundments were constructed sometime in the late
summer or early fall of 1975. They were used to store and evaporate
liquid wastes received at the Site. Drums were deposited in two
isolated drum disposal areas.
    In response to ADEQ's directives concerning a surface impoundment
release the operator stopped accepting liquid solvents in mid-1977.
Closure activities were initiated shortly thereafter. On August 8, 1978
the ADEQ was notified that the landfill had been closed and covered
with compacted material and graded to ensure adequate surface drainage.
    The EPA initiated investigations at the Site in 1980 in response to
an ADEQ 1979 report of a surface impoundment leachate problem. As a
result, the IWC site was placed on the NPL on December 30, 1982. The
Site Remedial Action Master Plan was completed by the EPA on September
30, 1983. The EPA notified potentially responsible parties (PRPs) who
organized into the IWC Steering Committee (``the Committee'') in
November of 1983. The Committee met with the regulatory agencies in
November of 1983 to discuss voluntary remediation and the following
studies were undertaken by the EPA and the Committee respectively.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The EPA's Remedial Investigation (RI) report and Endangerment
Assessment (EA) were completed on March 31, 1986, and its Feasibility
Study (FS) was completed on June 3, 1986. The EPA authorized the
Committee under an agreed Administrative Order to conduct an
independent remedial investigation referred to as the Hydrological and
Waste Quantification Study (HWQS). The HWQS was conducted from March
through July 1987. All field investigation activities conducted by the
Committee were overseen by the EPA, and coordinated through the ADEQ.
The HWQS report was submitted to the Agencies in October of 1987. A
Supplemental Feasibility Study and Supplemental Endangerment Assessment
were prepared by the Committee and submitted to the Agencies in
February 1988.
    The Endangerment Assessments (EA) were conducted to identify the
potential risks to public health and the environment. The general EA
conclusions were that the exposure pathways did not present an
unacceptable risk; significant concentrations of constituents of
concern (COC) had not migrated off site; most COC were non-carcinogens;
and without a transport mechanism COC did not present an unacceptable
risk to groundwater. The selected response action took these risk
factors into account.
    The Committee's FS evaluated remedy options and proposed a remedial
action plan which included removing the surface impoundments and drum
disposal areas, treating soils with constituents of concern above clean
up criteria, placement of the treated soils in the surface impoundment
excavation, controlling migration and infiltration by installing slurry
wall/french drain system, covering the surface with a full RCRA cap and
cover, and securing the entire Site within a secure 6 foot chain link
fence topped with three barb wire strands and controlling access.
    The EPA and the ADEQ determined that the proposed remediation
alternative met the mandates of Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). A press release and a fact sheet
summarizing the alternative were distributed to the general local
population and interested parties on April 19, 1988. A public meeting
was held with the area residents and local officials on May 9, 1988 at
the South Sebastian County Courthouse. Written comments and questions
were received during the comment period which ended June 2, 1988. The
EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on June 28, 1988.

Record of Decision

    The Record of Decision (ROD) established remediation objectives.
The objectives were to remove buried drums in Area C and D and dispose
of all liquids in an offsite RCRA facility; treat contaminated soils
above clean up criteria from Areas C, D, and 09B to pass the RCRA
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and solidify the
treated soil in the Area C excavation; install a french drain to
intercept and divert shallow groundwater around the Site, and a slurry
wall to prevent migration of onsite groundwater. Groundwater
encountered during remediation excavation was to be collected and
treated to meet effluent limitations or mixed with the stabilized soils
to meet TCLP limits. Solid and liquid wastes generated during RI were
to be characterized and treated and disposed on or offsite as
appropriate. A multi-layered RCRA cap was to be constructed to cover
the entire site area. A surface drainage ditch was to be constructed on
the upgradient side of the RCRA cap to divert surface run-on around the
covered Site. Land use restrictions and a security fence were to be put
in place to prevent development of the site. Upgradient and
downgradient groundwater was to be monitored, and the effectiveness of
the remedy was to be verified every five years.
    The objectives of the ROD were to be implemented in accordance with
the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), which outlined the general conceptual
procedures to be followed including preparation of contingency, solid
and waste management, health and safety, and QA/QC Plans. The RAP was
prepared to comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of the Federal, State and local rules and
regulations.

Cleanup Standards

    The remedial action objectives were to minimize the potential for
waste migration, protect human health and the environment, prevent
future contamination of surface water and groundwater and minimize
short-term air emissions resulting from remedial activities.

Response Actions

    The following actions were conducted in response to the ROD/RAP to
minimize the potential risks to the water stored in the mine void
reservoir:
    Reduce toxicity and volume by excavating soils that exceeded Clean-
up Criteria (1000ppm Total VOC) encountered in Areas B, C, D, 09B, and
along the Slurry Wall and French Drain pathway and treating the soils
using chemical fixation and stabilization to meet treatment standards
based on EPA Toxicity Concentration Leachate Procedure (TCLP). The
treated soils meeting TCLP standards were placed back into the
excavation of Area C, solidified with concrete. Area C was then
contained within a slurry wall keyed into the weathered bedrock and
Site slurry wall and then capped with a RCRA Cap and Cover. Drums
removed from Areas C and D that contained liquids were transport to an
offsite permitted commercial disposal facility.
    Mobility was reduced by removing the leachate transport mechanism
by installing French Drain upgradient of the Site to intercept shallow
rain infiltration above the weathered bedrock and divert it around the
remediated area. A slurry wall was installed downgradient and parallel
to the French Drain to cutoff backflow from the impacted Site soils
into the French Drain, and to provide backup for the French Drain. The
entire remediated area including the Landfill, French Drain, Site
slurry wall and self contained Area C was covered with a multilayer
RCRA Cap and Cover to prevent rainfall infiltration into the remediated
area.
    Long term security for the remediated site is provided by the Cap
and Cover, site security fence and restricted site access and use. The
Site is maintained, monitored and inspected regularly in accordance
with the Post Closure Activity Plan.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

    The Post Closure Activity Plan (January 1991) as approved by the
EPA specified the actions to be carried out once remediation
construction was completed (3/29/91). The Post Closure Activity Plan
(PCAP) included: monitor well sampling on a quarterly then semiannual
basis once baseline action levels were established; site inspections to
coincide with monitor well sample events; site mowing and erosion
control maintenance; monitor event reports and Five Year Reports to be
submitted by the EPA and ADEQ.
    The site monitoring has been conducted in compliance with the PCAP
as amended, with minor occasional variances duly noted and reported.
Monitor wells are sampled in accordance with standard EPA protocol.
Sample results which exceed action limits are resampled to confirm
conditions. Such occurrences have been infrequent and follow-up
resample results have returned to below action limits. The Site
vegetation and erosion control has been maintained. While significant
site repair has not been necessary, occasional site maintenance has
included: well repair and Area C evaluation, installation of additional
downgradient monitor wells, repair of french drain and recharge well,
regular site mowing, and topsoil replacement.
    The Site is totally enclosed by a 6 foot chain link fence topped
with three strands of barbed wire. Access is limited to two gates
secured with a chain and lock to which only authorized agency and PRP
personnel have keys. Over the course of the Post Closure Care period,
there have been infrequent and minor instances of site disturbance and
trespassing.
    Institutional controls (ICs) are a necessary component of
maintaining the long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ICs are legal
and administrative measures that prevent exposure to contaminants that
may remain at a site at concentrations above health-based risk levels.
They are typically designed to limit activities at or near the Site,
and include requirements for providing notice (i.e., deed recordation)
in the real property records for properties where residual
contamination will remain. For this Site, the ICs include a deed
recordation with a notice that buried contaminants remain on the
property, and a prohibition against any reuse, development or other
activities that might disturb or damage the affected areas without the
approval of EPA, ADEQ and the property owner. The requirement for
institutional controls was met through deed recordation in the Official
Public Records of Real Property in Sebastian County, Arkansas.

Five-Year Review

    The EPA must conduct a statutory five-year review of the remedy no
less than every five years after the initiation of the remedial action
pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c). Based on the five-year reviews, EPA
will determine whether human health and the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the implemented remedy. Five-year reviews for
this Site were completed in February 1997, July 2002, and a revised
version in September 2007. During the July 2002 five-year review, EPA
had prepared Deletion document for the Site. However Deletion was put
on hold as baseline contaminants were exceeded in three monitor wells.
IWC Settling Defendants (PRPs) conducted a Site Assessment Study (SAS)
which included statistical analysis, risk assessment and fate and
transport studies of the contaminants in the offending monitor wells.
Based on the data from SAS study by the IWC Settling Defendants, EPA
has concluded that offsite migration of contaminants will not occur.
Therefore Deletion of the Site from the National Priorities List (NPL)
is appropriate at this time. The next five-year review will occur no
later than September 2012.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities required in CERCLA Section 113(k),
42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617, have been
satisfied, and documents which EPA generated and/or relied on are
available to the public in these information repositories.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Arkansas, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and
that no further response actions under CERCLA, other than O&M and five-
year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective April 7, 2008 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
March 6, 2008. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 28, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Arkansas (``AR'')
by removing the entry for ``Industrial Waste Control.''

[FR Doc. E8-1964 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50018-50019]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways; Northeast United
States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways V-35 and V-260 in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-
2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov. FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in
the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air
traffic.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park,
GA, 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order JO
7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic
service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify VOR
Federal airways V-35 and V-260. The proposed route changes are
described below.
    V-35: V-35 extends from Dolphin, FL to Morgantown, WV; and From
Philipsburg, PA to Syracuse, NY. The

FAA proposes to remove the segments from Philipsburg, PA, to Syracuse,
NY. United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-307 will be published
as a partial overlay and replacement for V-35. A review of aeronautical
charts shows that V-35 does not extend outside U.S. airspace, therefore
the following wording would be removed from the V-35 legal description:
``The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is
excluded. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.''
    V-260: V-260 extends from Charleston, WV, to Cofield, NC. The FAA
proposes to remove Charleston, WV; Rainelle, WV; Roanoke, VA;
Lynchburg, VA; Franklin, VA; and Cofield, NC from the route. As
amended, V-260 would extend from Flat Rock, VA, to Hopewell, VA. The
full descriptions of the above routes are listed the proposed
amendments to part 71 set forth below.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-35 [Amended]

    From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 266[deg] and Cypress, FL, 110[deg]
radials; INT Cypress 110[deg] and Lee County, FL, 138[deg] radials;
Lee County; INT Lee County 326[deg] and St. Petersburg, FL, 152[deg]
radials; St. Petersburg; INT St. Petersburg 350[deg] and Cross City,
FL, 168[deg] radials; Cross City; Greenville, FL; Pecan, GA; Macon,
GA; INT Macon 005[deg] and Athens, GA, 195[deg] radials; Athens;
Electric City, SC; Sugarloaf Mountain, NC; Holston Mountain, TN;
Glade Spring, VA; Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 051[deg] and
Elkins, WV, 264[deg] radials; Clarksburg, WV to Morgantown, WV.
* * * * *

V-260 [Amended] From Flat Rock, VA; Richmond, VA; to Hopewell, VA.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17208 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 52445-52447]
[DOCID:fr09se08-159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2008-0259; OMB Control No.: 2106-0009]

Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division; Agency Information
Collection Activities; Request for Comments; [Renewed Approval of]
Information Collection: Exemption From Passenger Tariff-filing
Requirements in Certain Instances, and Mandatory Electronic Filing of
Residual Passenger Tariffs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, this notice announces the Department of Transportation
(DOT), Office of the Secretary's (OST) intention to request clearance
and renewal of a previously approved information collection. This
Information Collection Request (ICR) describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected burden. The purpose of this
notice is to allow the public to submit comments on our application to
renew ICR 2106-0009, 14 CFR Part 221--Constructing, Publications,
Filing and Posting of Tariffs of Air Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers.
The pre-existing information collection request previously approved by
OMB expires on September 30, 2008.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by: November 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For submitting comments: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Mail or Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Fax comments:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kiser,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Bernice
Gray,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division, Office
of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Room W86-319 or W86-433, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Exemption from Passenger Tariff-filing Requirements in
Certain Instances, and Mandatory Electronic Filing of Residual
Passenger Tariffs.
    OMB Control No.: 2106-0009.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    Background: Section 41504 of Title 49 of the United States Code,
requires every U.S. and foreign air carrier to file with the Department
and keep open for public inspection, tariffs showing all prices for
``foreign air transportation'' between points served by that carrier,
as well as all the rules relating to that transportation to the extent
required by the Department. This requirement includes passenger fares,
related charges and governing rules. The detailed tariff-filing rules
and authority for approvals, rejections, and waivers are established by
14 CFR Part 221. Once tariffs are allowed to become effective by the
Department, these tariffs become legally binding terms in the contract
of carriage for international air transportation.
    In several rulemaking proceedings, the Department determined that
the amount of tariff material filed by carriers exceeded our regulatory
requirements in certain respects; that alternative methods existed for
protecting consumers and other elements of the public interest that are
more effective than filed tariffs; and that procedures should be
developed to foster the electronic filing and the review of those
tariffs, which should continue to be filed. On November 30, 1995, the
Department published a final rule (Exemption From Property Tariff-
Filing Requirement for 14 CFR Parts 221 and 292, Docket No. 49827)
exempting carriers from their regulatory duty to file tariffs for
foreign air transportation of cargo.
    In the final rule (Notice of Exemption from Passenger Tariff-Filing
Requirements In Certain Instances, Docket OST-97-2050-12), issued July
21, 1999, the Department determined that the filing of certain tariffs
with the Department for foreign air transportation of passengers is no
longer necessary or appropriate, and accordingly granted another
exemption from the tariff-filing requirement set forth in Part 221. The
rule also required that all remaining tariffs be filed electronically.
A substantial number of provisions in Part 221 were removed, where
redundant or out-dated given present regulatory practices existed.
    On October 7, 1999, the Assistant Secretary issued a notice under
14 CFR Part 293, Notice of Exemption from the Department's Tariff-
Filing Requirement, Docket OST-97-2050-14, specifying the terms of the
exemptions for markets in Category A (no fare filing(s), Category B
(normal one-way economy fare filing(s) only or Category C (filing all
fares), taking into account specific factors present in each market.
The notice also specified which general rules must continue to be
filed.
    On September 12, 2005, the Assistant Secretary issued a Notice of
Exemption from the Department's Tariff-Filing Requirements, Docket OST-
97-2050-15, updating the list of countries added to the tariff-filing
exemptions under 14 CFR 293 for country-pair markets, transferring more
countries between categories, and increasing the number of exempted
countries from the tariff-filing requirements.
    On April 8, 2008, the Assistant Secretary issued a third notice
(Notice of Exemption from the Department's Tariff-Filing Requirements,
Docket OST-97-2050-18), updating the list of countries added to the
tariff-filing exemptions under 14 CFR 293 for country-pair markets,
transferring more countries between categories and increasing the
number of exempted countries from the tariff-filing requirements. Most
of the changes in the 2005 and 2008 notices moved countries into
Category A (not fare filing(s), reflecting the increasing number of
``open skies'' air services agreements between the United States and
its trading partners. The effect on the burden hours can not be
determined at this time for the newest updated list of tariff-filing
exemptions. Because of exemptions that have been granted to U.S. and
foreign carriers from the statutory and regulatory duty to file
international passenger tariffs for many markets, the burden of such
filings has been substantially reduced. When the final rule was issued
in July 1999, we estimated the total annual burden on respondents at
650,000 hours. In 2007, the Department received 45,840 electronic
filings, with an estimated annual burden of 229,200 burden hours. This
reflected the fact that fewer markets were subject to filing
requirements, but the reduction was tempered somewhat by a higher
frequency of filings in markets still subject to filing. Considering
these offsetting factors, we anticipate a modest further reduction of
burden in the future.
    Respondents: The vast majority of the air carriers filing
international tariffs are large operators with revenues in excess of
several million dollars each year. Small air carriers operating
aircraft with 60 seats or less and 18,000 pounds payload or less that
offer on-demand air-taxi service are not required to file such tariffs.
    Frequency: The information will be collected annually.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 229,200.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, by the use of electronic means, including the use of
automated

collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued On: August 29, 2008.
Patricia Lawton,
IT Policy Oversight, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-20851 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P