[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28552-28553]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0517]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Thames River, New London, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating

schedule that governs the Amtrak Bridge across Thames River, mile 3.0,
at New London, CT. This action is necessary to complete installation of
an emergency generator. This deviation allows the bridge to require a
two hour advance notice for openings during nighttime hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 31, 2017 to 7
a.m. on September 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0517 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email James L. Rousseau, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
617-223-8619, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amtrak, the owner of the bridge, requested a
temporary deviation in order to facilitate installation of a lift span
emergency generator. The Amtrak Bridge across the Thames River, mile
3.0 at New London, Connecticut has a horizontal clearance of 150 feet
and a vertical clearance of 29 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at
mean low water in the closed position. The bridge has a vertical
clearance of 75 feet in the intermediate raised position and 135 feet
in the fully open position at mean high water. The existing drawbridge
operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.224.
    This temporary deviation will allow the Amtrak Bridge to require a
2 hour advance notice between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. from July 31, 2017 to
September 12, 2017, while a crane barge is present next to the lift
span. The presence of the crane barge reduces the horizontal clearance
to 70 feet. Additionally, between July 31, 2017 and September 10, 2017
the lift span will be in the down position during daytime hours but
will be able to open when requested.
    The waterway is transited by recreational traffic, commercial
vessels, ferries, and military vessels. Vessels that can pass under the
bridge without an opening may do so at all times. When the barge is
located next to the lift span, the bridge will not be able to open
immediately for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 20, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13165 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1 The ozone season ends on September 30 and, for 2005 and thereafter, starts on May 1.

2 A court decision has mandated that the 2004 ozone season will begin on May 31 rather than May 1 in certain states ( including Alabama). UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 3/ 22/ 05 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION ATTACHMENT for Unit Z008 DRAFT Mr. Boyd A. Giles Authorized Account Representative Mead Coated Board P. O. Box 940 Phenix City, Alabama 36868 0940 Re: Consolidated Requirements for a NO x Predictive Emissions Monitoring System for a PFI Boiler ( Unit Z008) at the Mahrt Paper Mill ( Facility ID ( ORISPL) 54802)

Dear Mr. Giles:

To allow for easier implementation, this Attachment consolidates the requirements in: Additional Quality Assurance Requirements for Conditionally Approved Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems at the Mahrt Paper Mill ( Facility ID ( ORISPL) 54802), EPA's March 1, 2004 conditional approval, and EPA's June 3, 2004 amendment to the March 1, 2004 conditional approval.

BACKGROUND On April 30, 2003, MeadWestvaco petitioned for approval of a Software CEM ® predictive emissions monitoring system ( PEMS) manufactured by Pavilion Technologies. The PEMS is a neural network based computer software system that utilizes computerized boiler sensor inputs to predict nitrogen oxides ( NO x) emissions. The PEMS is installed on a 428 mmBtu/ hr, Babcock and Wilcox dry bottom, wall fired, pressurized furnace industrial ( PFI) boiler ( Unit Z008) at the Mahrt Paper Mill in Cottonton, Alabama. Unit Z008 is used to produce steam for the mill. The primary fuel for the unit is pipeline natural gas and the secondary fuel is No. 2 fuel oil ( diesel fuel). The unit has no emission controls for NO x. Unit Z008 is subject to the NO x Budget Trading Program under Alabama Department of Environmental Management ( ADEM) Code R. 335 3 8, which requires MeadWestvaco to continuously monitor and report NO x mass emissions and heat input for this unit in accordance with Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 75, beginning on May 1, 2003. Code R. 335 3 8 further requires MeadWestvaco to hold NO x allowances equal to the ozone season1 NO x mass emissions from Unit Z008, beginning on May 31, 20042. Pursuant to discussions with MeadWestvaco, EPA agreed that installation of the PEMS, completion of initial certification testing 2 of the PEMS, and submission of a petition for approval of the PEMS as an alternative monitoring system ( AMS) under Subpart E of Part 75 by May 1, 2003 would effectively satisfy these requirements.

The Software CEM ® system was installed on Unit Z008 in January, 2003. MeadWestvaco subsequently hired a contractor to perform EPA Reference Method ( RM) testing for NO x concentration ( ppmvd, using RM 7E), O 2 concentration ( dry % O 2, using RM 3A) and the resulting NO x emission rate ( lb/ mmBtu, calculated using Equation F 5 in Appendix F of Part 75). The testing was conducted at normal representative unit operating levels while the boiler combusted pipeline natural gas. The testing produced 850 valid, hourly paired RM and PEMS values. On April 30, 2003, MeadWestvaco submitted a petition for approval of the PEMS, as required.

EPA'S DETERMINATION Under subpart E, the owner or operator of a unit applying to the Administrator for approval of an AMS must demonstrate that the AMS has the same or better precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness ( PRAT) as provided by a CEMS. The demonstration must be made by comparing the AMS to a contemporaneously operating, fully certified CEMS. Sections 75.41 through 75.46 discuss the criteria for evaluating PRAT, daily quality assurance, and missing data substitution for the AMS. Section 75.48 details the information that must be included in the application in order to demonstrate that the criteria in § § 75.41 46 are met.

The following paragraphs describe how EPA determined that MeadWestvaco application satisfies the requirements of a subpart E AMS petition, and is therefore approvable. As discussed in greater detail below, EPA's approval applies only to PFI boiler, Unit Z008 at the Mahrt Paper Mill when firing natural gas, and only for PEMS output of NO x emission rate ( lb/ mmBtu). If a PEMS input parameter value goes below certain minimum or above certain maximum values, MeadWestvaco shall report the maximum potential NO x emission rate ( MER). During startups, shutdowns, or if the PEMS alarms, MeadWestvaco must report the NO x MER. For every hour that Unit Z008 fires oil ( diesel fuel), MeadWestvaco shall use a default GCV, the fuel flow meter output and the NO x MER to calculate and report NO x mass emissions.

1. Precision Under § 75.41, for the normal unit operating level, MeadWestvaco must provide paired AMS and fully certified CEMS hourly data for at least 90 percent of the hours during 720 unit operating hours for the primary fuel supply and for at least 24 successive unit operating hours for all alternative fuel supplies that have significantly different sulfur content. MeadWestvaco must not use missing data substitution procedures to provide sample data. MeadWestvaco may also demonstrate, and adjust the data to account for, any lognormality and time dependency autocorrelation. MeadWestvaco must pass three statistical tests, i. e., a linear correlation coefficient ( r) > 0.8, an Ftest and a one tailed t test for bias described in appendix A to part 75. Further, MeadWestvaco must provide two separate time series plots for AMS and CEMS data. Each data plot must have a horizontal axis representing the clock hour and calendar date of the readings and must contain a separate data point for every hour for the duration of the test. One data plot must show percentage difference vs. time, and the other data plot must show AMS and CEMS readings vs. time. Finally, a plot of the paired AMS ( on the vertical axis) and CEMS ( on the horizontal axis) concentrations must 3 3 Under § 75.41( b), in preparation for conducting the required statistical tests, the data may be screened for lognormality and time dependency autocorrelation. If either is detected, certain calculation adjustments are allowed. According to MeadWestvaco, no lognormality was detected. Although the data set met the autocorrelation criteria, application of the time dependent autocorrelation test is not appropriate for this data set since the hourly averages are influenced by drastic boiler load changes. Even if an autocorrelation adjustment was applied, the adjusted data set would not have been significantly affected. Therefore, consistent with § 75.41( b), no calculation adjustments were made to the data.

4 If the t test is failed, the PEMS must apply a bias adjustment factor ( BAF) as described in Part 75, Appendix A, § 7.6.5. be provided.

MeadWestvaco collected 917 hours of historical, paired RM vs. PEMS data while natural gas was being combusted in Unit Z008. Data from 65 hours during this time period was invalidated due to various problems unrelated to PEMS performance. Therefore, 852 hours of valid paired RM and PEMS data were collected. Only 850 hours of valid data were submitted to EPA. However, as explained in a July 23, 2003 letter ( submitted in a July 25, 2003 e mail) from MeadWestvaco's testing company, Advanced Industrial Resources, Inc., inclusion of these two hours of data does not significantly affect the test results. According to MeadWestvaco, the 850 hours submitted represent more than 90% of the unit operating hours in the data collection period, thereby satisfying the requirement in § 75.41( a)( 6). According to MeadWestvaco, all 850 hours of data were qualityassured i. e., no missing data substitution procedures were applied.

The table below shows the results of the statistical tests for the conditionally approved PEMS output. 3 PEMS ( lbs NOx/ mmBtu)

t test: mean difference d = 0.0325 abs. value of confidence coefficient cc = 0.0017 Evaluation: Since

cc

< d, the model failed. 4 BAF = 1 +

d avg

/ PEMS avg = 1.161 r coefficient correlation: r = 0.951 Evaluation: Since r > 0.8, the model passed. 4 F test: variance of PEMS = 0.006818 variance of RM = 0.006542 F = 1.042 F critical = 1.12 Evaluation: Since F critical > F, the model passed.

The PEMS output of NO x emission rate in lb/ mmBtu passed the r correlation and F test, but failed the t test for bias. Therefore, a bias adjustment factor ( BAF) was calculated according to Part 75, Appendix A, § 7.6.5. This BAF shall be applied to the PEMS output until the next relative accuracy test audit ( RATA), at which time a new BAF will be determined if the t test is failed ( see paragraphs ( f), ( g) and ( h)).

Further, MeadWestvaco supplied the appropriate data plots concerning the paired AMS and CEMS data under § § 75.41( a)( 9) and ( c)( 2)( i).

2. Reliability According to § 75.42, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the PEMS is capable of providing valid hourly averages for 95.0 percent or more of unit operating hours over a one year period, and that the system meets the applicable quality assurance requirements of Part 75, Appendix B. EPA finds that the percent monitoring data availability for the PEMS NO x output over a period greater than one year exceeds 95.0 percent. EPA therefore finds that the PEMS meets the § 75.42 requirements for monitoring system data availability. By meeting the QA/ QC requirements described in this letter, MeadWestvaco will also meet the applicable appendix B quality assurance and quality control ( QA/ QC) requirements.

3. Accessibility and Timeliness According to § § 75.43 and 75.44, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the PEMS: meets the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Subparts F and G of Part 75; can provide " a continuous, quality assured permanent record of certified emissions data on an hourly basis"; and is capable of " issuing a record of data for the previous day within 24 hours". According to MeadWestvaco, the PEMS has demonstrated the ability to meet Subpart F and G requirements by employing a DAHS that generates monitoring data in accordance with EPA's electronic data reporting ( EDR) format, version 2.2. The software also provides a continuous display of real time emissions data to the operator. In view of these considerations, EPA finds that the PEMS meets the requirements of § § 75.43 and 75.44.

4. Quality Assurance To quality assure the data recorded by a PEMS, Subpart E requires the following: First, under § 75.45, the owner or operator must demonstrate either that daily QA tests equivalent to those in Appendix B of Part 75 can be performed on the PEMS or that such tests are unnecessary for providing quality assured data. Second, § 75.48( a)( 9) requires the owner or operator to submit as 5 5 The PEMS precision test data has a maximum absolute humidity of 120.7 grains of water per pound of dry air. However, a requested maximum value of 140.00 grains of water per pound of dry air absolute humidity is being allowed based on data submitted on 7/ 31/ 03 that indicates a linear relationship between absolute humidity and PEMS NO x concentration output. part of the certification application a detailed description of the operation, maintenance, and quality assurance procedures for the AMS as required in Part 75, Appendix B. Third, § § 75.48 ( a)( 8), ( a)( 10) and ( a)( 11) require the owner or operator to provide: a detailed description of the process used to collect data, including location and method of ensuring an accurate assessment of operating hourly conditions on a real time basis; a description of methods used to calculate heat input or diluent gas concentration; and results of tests and measurements necessary to substantiate the equivalency of the AMS to a fully certified CEMS. EPA finds that the PEMS will meet these requirements by meeting the following:

( a) The PEMS uses the following input parameters: natural gas flow, oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas, number of burners fired, and absolute humidity. The PEMS input parameters must stay within the minimum and maximum values ( inclusive) in the below table ( referred to as " the PEMS operating envelope"), unless the PEMS is retrained according to paragraph ( g) below, in which case, the new training values will supercede the values in the below table. If any PEMS input parameter value goes below the minimum or above the maximum table values by 5 percent or more, the PEMS shall be considered out of control, and the NO x MER shall be used, calculated according to paragraph ( h), starting with the hour after the sensor value goes outside of the PEMS operating envelope and ending with the hour after the sensor value is back within the PEMS operating envelope. Data from each PEMS input parameter shall be maintained on site in a form suitable for inspection for at least three ( 3) years from the date of each record.

PEMS Operating Envelope PEMS Input Parameter Minimum Value Maximum Value Natural gas flow ( kscfh) 1.51 341.65 O2 (%) 0.10 21.13 Number of burners fired 1 4 Inlet air absolute humidity ( grains H2O/ lb dry air) 0.00 140.005 ( b) The sensors for the PEMS' input parameters must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Further, the PEMS' Sensor Validation System identifies and reconciles failed sensors by: comparing each sensor to several other sensors; determining, based on the comparison, if a sensor has failed; and calculating a value for any failed sensor. MeadWestvaco must check, and demonstrate, that the Sensor Validation System validates sensor data in this way every minute of PEMS operation; and computes hourly averages using at least one valid data point in each fifteen minute quadrant of an hour ( producing at 6 least four valid data points per hour), where the unit combusted fuel during that quadrant of an hour, to comply with § 75.10( d)( 1).

( c) MeadWestvaco shall implement a sensor validation alarm system to inform the operator when sensors need repair and to indicate that the PEMS is out of control. In setting up the alarm system, a demonstration shall be performed at a minimum of four different PEMS training conditions, which must be representative of the entire range of expected boiler operations. For each of the four or more training conditions, the demonstration shall consist of the following:

( 1) For all of the sensors used in the PEMS model, input a set of reference sensor values that were recorded either during the training of the PEMS or during a RATA of the PEMS ( these values will all be within the PEMS operating envelope). Verify that these reference inputs produce the expected PEMS output, i. e., the expected NO x emission rate;

( 2) Perform one sensor failure analysis, as follows. Artificially fail one of the sensors and then, using the calculated replacement value for that sensor ( see paragraph ( b), above), assess the effect on the accuracy of the PEMS. Calculate the percent difference between the reference NO x emission rate from step ( 1) and the PEMS output. Repeat this procedure for each sensor, individually;

( 3) Identify the sensor failure in step ( 2) that results in the worst accuracy. If the highest percent deviation exceeds + 10.0%, then set up the PEMS to alarm when any single sensor fails. If none of the percent difference values exceeds 10.0%, then set up the PEMS to alarm with two sensor failures.

The results of this demonstration shall be reported in the Subpart H certification hardcopy test report and in record type 910 in the quarterly EDR submittal for the quarter in which the demonstration is performed. When the PEMS alarms, the PEMS is out of control and MeadWestvaco shall report the NO x MER, calculated according to paragraph ( h), starting with the hour after the sensor validation alarm system alarms and ending with the hour after the sensor value is back within the expected range.

( d) A daily QA/ QC test must be performed. MeadWestvaco shall input to the PEMS a set of boiler operating parameters collected during the most recent RATA or training. The resulting PEMS NO x lb/ mmBtu output shall be compared to the reference method NO x lb/ mmBtu value, measured during the most recent RATA or training. If the PEMS NO x output is within + 10.0% of the reference method value, the daily QA/ QC test is passed. If the daily QA/ QC test is failed, the PEMS is out of control. Subpart D missing data procedures shall be followed starting with the hour after the failed test or, if the test is not timely conducted, the hour after the test due date and ending with the hour in which the test is passed. No grace periods are allowed. The results of this check ( pass/ fail) shall be reported in RT 624 in EDR version 2.2. ( Note: Use code ` 04' in start column 53 ( QA test code) for the daily QA/ QC check.)

( e) MeadWestvaco shall perform the tests indicated in the ` PEMS Ongoing QA/ QC Tests' 7 6ASTM D6522 00, Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers.

7 GRI ( Gas Research Institute), Topical Report, Development of an Electrochemical Cell Emission Analyzer Test Method, July, 1997. table, below, including monthly 3 run relative accuracy audits ( RAAs). A monthly RAA shall be performed in every calendar month during the ozone season when NO x monitoring is required by Part 75 that the unit operates for at least 168 hours, except for a month in which a full 9 run RATA is performed. The monthly RAAs shall be done on a pounds of NO x per million Btu ( lb/ mmBtu) basis, and shall be performed using either EPA Reference Methods 7E and 3A in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A 4, or a portable electrochemical analyzer. To the extent practicable, each successive monthly RAA shall be done at different operating conditions from the previous one. Follow analyzer manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures.

The minimum time per RAA run shall be 20 minutes. The reference method traverse point selection shall be consistent with section 6.5.6 of Part 75, Appendix A. Alternatively, a single measurement point located at least 0.5 meters from the stack or duct wall may be used without performing a stratification test.

Results of the RAA shall be calculated using Equation 1 1 in Appendix F of 40 CFR Part 60. Bias adjusted data from the PEMS ( using the bias adjustment factor from the most recent RATA) shall be used in the calculations. The results of the RAA are acceptable if the performance specifications in the ` PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests' table, below, are met. If the monthly RAA is failed, the PEMS is out of control. Subpart D missing data procedures shall be followed starting with the hour after the failed test or, if the test is not timely conducted, the hour after the test due date, and ending with the hour in which the test is passed. No grace periods are allowed.

Report the results of all monthly RAAs in the appropriate quarterly electronic data report ( EDR). Use EDR record type 624, and report the results of each test as either ` pass' or ` fail'. Report the QA test code in column 53 of RT 624 as ` 05'.

If a chemiluminescent NO x analyzer ( a portable chemiluminescent analyzer may be used) is used to perform the required RAAs, the procedures of Method 7E in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A 4 shall be followed. The analyzer performance specifications in Method 7E for calibration error, system bias, and calibration drift shall be met.

If a portable electrochemical analyzer is used to perform the required RAAs, ASTM Method D6522 006, as modified below, shall be followed. ASTM D6522 00 applies to the measurement of NO x ( NO and NO 2), CO, and O 2 concentrations in emissions from natural gas fired combustion systems using electrochemical analyzers. The method was developed based on studies sponsored by the Gas Research Institute ( GRI) 7. It has also been peerreviewed approved by ASTM Committees D22.03 and D22, and accepted by EPA as a 8 8" Evaluation of Portable Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems for NOx", The Cadmus Group, Inc., September 8, 2004 conditional test method ( CTM 030). ASTM D6522 00 prescribes analyzer design specifications, test procedures, and instrument performance requirements that are similar to the checks in EPA's instrumental test methods ( e. g., Methods 7E and 20). These checks include linearity, interference, stability, pre test calibration error, and post test calibration error.

Based on the results of EPA's portable analyzer study8, the following modifications to ASTM D6522 00 are required to make the method more practical without sacrificing accuracy: ( a) NO x analyzers must provide readings to 0.1 ppm to improve the likelihood of passing the performance specifications for sources with low NO x levels; ( b) an alternative performance specification ( e. g., + 1 ppm difference from reference value) will be applied to take account of sources with low concentrations of NO x; and ( c) the measurement system must be purged with ambient air between gas injections during the stability check, to reduce degradation of electrochemical cell performance ( see footnote 6, below).

The measurement system performance specifications as modified by the EPA portable analyzer study are shown in the following table.

ASTM Method D6522 00 Measurement System Performance Specifications ( as Modified by EPA Portable Analyzer Study)

Performance Check Gas Acceptance Criteria Zero Calibration Error NO, NO2

3 percent of span gas value or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive O2

0.3 percent O2 Span Calibration Error NO, NO2

5 percent of span gas value or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive O2

0.5 percent O2 Interference NO, NO2, O2

5 percent of average stack NO concentration for each test run ( using span gas checks)

Linearity NO, O2

2.5 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive NO2

3.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm difference, whichever is less restrictive 9 9When conducting this check for three cells in an analyzer, the system must be purged with ambient air between gas injections to minimize the possibility of problems with the electrochemical cells. Otherwise, the cells will be exposed to high NO and NO 2 concentrations for prolonged periods of time, which can cause degradation in the cell's performance ( i. e., the socalled " O 2 starved exposure"). Stability 9 NO, NO2 O2

2.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm maxmin difference, whichever is less restrictive, for 30 minute period

1.0 percent of span gas concentration or + 1.0 ppm maxmin difference, whichever is less restrictive, for 15 minute period Cell Temperature ± 5  F from initial temperature ( f) MeadWestvaco shall perform initial certification tests on the PEMS prior to May 1, 2003. These tests shall be performed in the following order: ( 1) Ensure that the Sensor Validation System meets the requirements of paragraph ( b). ( 2) Train or retrain, as applicable, the PEMS according to the manufacturer's recommendations. ( 3) Ensure that the requirements in paragraph ( c) are met. ( 4) Perform a RATA, following the procedures in section 6.5 of Part 75, Appendix A, except use three different operating levels ( low, mid and high) as defined in section <IP_ADDRESS> of Part 75, Appendix A. However, because the PEMS is only approved for use at 1.51 to 341.65 kscfh natural gas flow, use that as a guide when establishing the lower and upper boundaries of the range of operation. Use paired PEMS and reference method data to calculate the results on a lb NO x/ mmBtu basis2. MeadWestvaco shall apply to each operating level the RATA performance specifications contained in the PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests table in paragraph ( j). Report the RATA data and results of only the normal operating level in EDR record types 610 and 611 and keep the data and results for the other two operating levels on site, available for inspection. The RATA result for the normal operating level determines when the next RATA is due. ( 5) Conduct an Ftest and a correlation analysis using Part 75, Subpart E equations at low, mid and high operating levels. Calculations shall be based on a minimum of 30 runs at each operating level. The F test is to be applied to data at each operating level separately. The correlation analysis shall be performed using all data collected at the three operating levels combined. If the standard deviation of the reference method NO x data is less than either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, the reference method standard deviation of either 3 percent of span or 5 ppm may be used when applying the F test. When the mean value of the reference method NO x data is less than 5 ppm, the correlation analysis ( r test) may be waived at that specific operating level. ( 6) Calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor ( BAF) at the normal operating level according to section 7.6 of Part 75, Appendix A. If all tests and procedures in ( 1), ( 3), ( 4) and ( 5) are not passed, and all the procedures in ( 2) and ( 6), are not completed, by May 1, 2003, the NO x MER, calculated with the appropriate NO x MPC value from part 75, appendix A, Table 2 2, must be used with the measured heat input to calculate and report NO x mass emissions until all tests and procedures in ( 1)( 5) are passed and all the procedures in ( 2) and ( 6), are completed."

Note: Because MeadWestvaco has already complied with the provisions of paragraph ( f), it 10 does not need to perform paragraph ( f), above, unless a new NO x PEMS monitoring system is installed.

( g) After initial certification, if a RATA is failed due to a problem with the PEMS, or if changes occur that result in a significant change in NO x emission rate relative to the previous PEMS training conditions ( e. g., boiler aging, process modification, new process operating modes, or changes to emission controls), the tests and procedures in paragraph ( f) shall be performed on the PEMS in the order specified in that paragraph. The tests and procedures in paragraph ( f) shall be completed by the earlier of 60 unit operating days ( as defined in section 72.2) or 180 calendar days after the failed RATA or after the change that caused a significant change in NO x emission rate. MeadWestvaco shall use the appropriate Part 75 missing data procedures ( see section 5), starting from the hour of the failed RATA and ending the hour after successful passage or completion of the tests and procedures, as required above. MeadWestvaco shall report the NO x MER, and Method of Determination Code " 55 Other substitute data approved through petition by EPA" in RT 320 for reporting lb NO x/ mmBtu emission rate, starting with the hour after the change that caused a significant change in NO x emission rate, and ending the hour after successful passage or completion of the tests and procedures, as required above.

( h) For any hour or partial hour of startup or shutdown operation, or for periods of oil firing, MeadWestvaco must report the maximum potential NO x emission rate ( MER), calculated in accordance with § <IP_ADDRESS> ( b) of Appendix A to Part 75, and use Method of Determination Code " 55 Other substitute data approved through petition by EPA" to report lb NO x/ mmBtu emission rate in RT 320. A maximum potential NO x concentration ( MPC) of 600 ppm, in accordance with Part 75, Appendix A, Table 2 2, an O2 diluent cap value of 14.0% O2, and f factor of 8,710 dscf/ mmBtu for gas firing or 9,190 dscf/ mmBtu for oil firing, as appropriate, shall be used in the MER calculation.

( i) MeadWestvaco must perform monthly diesel GCV sampling during each ozone season, starting in the 2004 ozone season and continuing indefinitely thereafter. If the results of any monthly sample exceed the 20,000 Btu/ lb default GCV value, MeadWestvaco shall use that higher GCV value as the new default value to determine heat input and NO x mass emissions. For every hour that Unit Z008 fires diesel fuel, MeadWestvaco shall use the default GCV, the fuel flow meter output and the NO x MER to calculate and report NO x mass emissions. Whenever the GCV value is updated, MeadWestvaco shall report the new GCV in record type 302 of the electronic data report ( EDR) for the quarter in which the change in GCV occurs.

( j) On going QA/ QC tests shall be performed according to the following table:

PEMS On going QA/ QC Tests Test Performance Specification Frequency Daily QA/ QC < 10.0% of reference NOx emission rate Daily ( see paragraph ( d)) 11 10 The unit is a low emitting source if the mean reference value during the RATA or RAA is < 0.200 lb/ mmBtu NO x 3 run RAA  Accuracy < 10.0% or  For a low emitting source10, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.020 lb/ mmBtu of the reference mean value Monthly ( see paragraph ( e))

RATA For semiannual RATA frequency: ° RA > 7.5% and < 10.0% or  For a low emitting source10, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.020 lb/ mmBtu of the reference method mean value.

For annual RATA frequency:  RA < 7.5% or  For a low emitting source10, results are acceptable if the mean value for the PEMS is within + 0.015 lb/ mmBtu of the reference method mean value Annual or semiannual and after each PEMS training ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g))

Sensor validation system ( minimum data capture) Check for production of at least 1 valid data point per 15 minutes ( see paragraph ( b)) Daily Bias adjustment factor If davg <  cc  , bias test is passed After each RATA ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g))

PEMS training ( Linear correlation and F test) r > 0.8, and Fcritical > F According to paragraphs ( f) and ( g)

Sensor validation compliance alarm system set up ( see paragraph ( c)) After each PEMS training ( see paragraphs ( f) and ( g))

The daily QA/ QC test is described in paragraph ( d). The 3 run RAA is discussed in paragraph ( e). On going RATAs shall be performed at the normal operating level according to the procedures in Part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.1 and, as discussed in paragraph ( f), shall be calculated on a lb/ mmBtu basis. Immediately prior to a RATA, the BAF shall be set to 1.000. On a daily basis, MeadWestvaco shall check that the sensor validation system is set to provide one valid data point per 15 minute period, as discussed in paragraph ( b). After each RATA, MeadWestvaco shall calculate and apply a bias adjustment factor at the normal operating level according to Part 75, Appendix A, section 7.6. MeadWestvaco shall train or retrain the PEMS according to paragraphs ( f) and ( g). After each training, MeadWestvaco shall perform a normal operating level RATA and bias test, described in paragraph ( f), and the sensor validation alarm demonstration in paragraph ( c).

5. Missing Data Substitution 12 Under § 75.46, MeadWestvaco must demonstrate that all missing data can be accounted for in a manner consistent with the applicable missing data procedures in subpart D. MeadWestvaco stated that the PEMS meets the subpart D requirements, including the initial missing data procedures, determination of monitor data availability, standard missing data procedures, and either the PEMS or data acquisition and handling system meet the appendix D, § 2.4 requirements for determining missing data for heat input. According to MeadWestvaco, the PEMS can determine monitor data availability, assess the operating times for which data must be substituted, and recover historical data from the PI data historian. The elapsed out of control time of the PEMS will be monitored, allowing the PEMS to retrieve the data necessary to perform the substitution. Once the data has been retrieved, the required calculations will be performed. To assist in analyzing missing data, the software will provide data managing reports that will allow the user to monitor the out ofcontrol time ( or monitor data availability), data gap analysis, recovered data queries, substituted data usage, and the standard reporting requirements.

6. Additional Requirements A monitoring plan is due 45 days prior to the initial certification tests ( § 75.62) described in paragraph ( f) above. MeadWestvaco shall submit the operating envelope for Unit Z008 to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and to EPA Region 4 for inclusion in the hardcopy monitoring plan. Any time changes are made to the PEMS operating envelope, the complete, revised PEMS operating envelope shall be submitted in a hardcopy monitoring plan by the applicable deadline in § 75.62( a)( 2). More information on monitoring plan submittals and other submittals can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ monitoring/ submissions/ monplan. html.

MeadWestvaco shall follow the EDR version 2.2 reporting instructions, found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ reporting/ edr21/, in conjunction with the required PEMS record types, and the supplementary PEMS EDR reporting instructions attached to this petition response, to report data from the PEMS. Monitoring Data Checking ( MDC) software that can be used to quality assure the electronic reports prior to submission is found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ reporting/ index. html.

If there are any further questions or concerns about this matter, please contact John Schakenbach of my staff at 202 343 9158 or at ( schakenbach. john@ epa. gov) .

Sincerely,

Sam Napolitano, Director Clean Air Markets Division cc: John Schakenbach, EPA, CAMD Manuel Oliva, EPA, CAMD David McNeal, EPA Region 4 Anthony Yarbrough, ALDEM 7/ 30/ 03 EDR REPORTING [ PREDICTIVE EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEMS ( PEMS)]

I. Introduction Table A 15, below includes the essential EDR record types for units that have received approval under Subpart E of Part 75 to use predictive emissions monitoring systems ( PEMS) to report NO x emissions. The scope of Table A 15 is limited to affected oil and gas fired units ( i. e., boilers and combustion turbines) that:

 Have a single unit single stack exhaust configuration; and  Use Appendix D methodology to quantify unit heat input; and  Use Appendices D and G to account for SO 2 and CO 2 mass emissions ( if the units are in the Acid Rain Program); and  Do not co fire oil and gas.

For PEMS reporting, EDR version 2.2 must be used, since fuel specific missing data substitution for NO x emission rate is required. For hourly NO x emission rate reporting, RT 320 is used. Hourly 200 level records are not reported for either NO x concentration or diluent gas ( O 2 or CO 2) concentration.

For units that burn more than one fuel type, separate PEMS are required for each fuel. Each PEMS should be reported as a separate monitoring system with a unique monitoring system ID in RT 510. Each PEMS will require its own set of certification, recertification, and quality assurance tests.

II. Interpreting Table A 15 In Table A 15, the first column identifies the record type. The second column gives a brief description of the record type. The third, fourth, and fifth columns indicate whether the record type must be reported for a particular type of submittal. The third column header, " MP," refers to monitoring plan submittals. The fourth column header, " CT," stands for certification or recertification applications. The fifth column header, " QT," refers to electronic data report submittals. The letter codes in columns 3 through 5 are defined as follows:

Y This record type is required for this type of submittal ( monitoring plan, certification/ recertification application or electronic data report)

N This record type is not appropriate for this type of submittal.

O This record type is appropriate, but optional for this type of submittal.

A This record type may be required for this submittal. If any doubt exists as to the need to submit this record type, consult the appropriate EDR instructions.

T This record type is required each time a quality assurance test ( e. g., a RATA) is performed. 2 Table A 15 EDR RECORD TYPES FOR UNITS WITH PEMS Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 100 Facility Identification Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 101 Record Types Submitted O O O ARP, Subpart H 102 Facility Location and Identification Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 300 Operating Data N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report one RT 300 for each hour in the quarter, except when a unit does not operate during the entire quarter. ° For each operating hour, report the fuel combusted in column 64.

301 Quarterly Cumulative Emissions N N Y ARP ° Quarterly NOx emission rate is the arithmetic average of the RT 320, col 42 values 302 Oil Fuel Flow N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° For ARP units, must be paired with RT 313 when reporting SO2 mass emissions.

303 Gas Fuel Flow N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° For ARP units, must be paired with RT 314 when reporting SO2 mass emissions.

307 Cumulative NOx Mass Emissions N N Y Subpart H 313 SO2 Mass Emissions ( Oil) N N Y ARP 314 SO2 Mass Emissions ( Gas) N N Y ARP 320 NOx Emission Rate Estimation N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

328 NOx Mass Emissions N N Y Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

330 CO2 Mass Emissions Data N N A ARP ° Report RT 330 for hours in which Equation G 4 is used to determine hourly CO2 mass emissions for gas or oil fired units.

331 CO2 Mass Emissions Estimation Parameters N N A ARP ° Report RT 331 if you estimate CO2 mass emissions using fuel sampling and Equation G 1 504 Unit Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 505 Program Indicator for Report Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 506 EIA Cross Reference Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 507 Peaking Unit or ARP Gas Fired Unit Qualification Data A A A ARP 508 Subpart H Reporting Frequency Change N N A Subpart H 510 Monitoring Systems/ Analytical Components Table Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions) 3 Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 520 Formula Table Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report formulas for SO2 and CO2 mass emissions ( ARP units, only), NOx mass emissions ( Subpart H units), and unit heat input rate.

531 Defaults and Constants Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

535 Unit and Stack Operating Load Data Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H Required for any unit using load based missing data procedures for NOx or fuel flow rate.

536 Range of Operation, Normal Load, and Load Usage Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 536 to define operating range and normal load for RATA testing 540 Fuel Flowmeter Data Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 550 Reasons for Monitoring System Downtime or Missing Parameter N N A ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

556 Monitoring System Recertification, Maintenance, or Other Events N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 556 for recertification of the PEMS or fuel flowmeters ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

585 Monitoring Methodology Information Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

586 Control Equipment Information A A A ARP, Subpart H 587 Unit Fuel Type Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H 610 RATA and Bias Test Data N Y T ARP, Subpart H ° Report RTs 610 each time a RATA is performed for certification, recertification or for on going QA/ QC. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

611 RATA and Bias Test Results N Y T ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 611 each time a RATA is performed for certification, recertification or for on going QA/ QC. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

624 Other QA Activities N N Y ARP, Subpart H ° Report RT 624 for PEMS daily QA/ QC and for PEMS periodic accuracy checks using a reference method, or a portable analyzer. ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

627 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test N A T ARP, Subpart H ° Report only for fuel flowmeters that are certified and quality assured by periodic accuracy tests according to Section <IP_ADDRESS> or <IP_ADDRESS> of Appendix D.

628 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test for Orifice, Nozzle and Venturi Flowmeter N A T ARP, Subpart H ° Report only for orifice, nozzle and venturi type flowmeters that are quality assured by periodic transmitter/ transducer calibrations. 4 Record Type Description MP CT QT Program Applicability and Comments 629 Fuel Flow to load Ratio Test Baseline Data N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report if quarterly fuel flow to load ratio test in Section 2.1.7 of Appendix D is used to extend fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

630 Quarterly Fuel Flow to load Ratio Test Results N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report if quarterly fuel flow to load ratio test in Section 2.1.7 of Appendix D is used to extend fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

696 Fuel Flowmeter Accuracy Test Extension N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Use RT 696 to claim allowable extensions of fuel flowmeter accuracy test deadlines.

697 RATA Deadline Extension or Exemption N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report when claiming a RATA deadline extension Appendix B, Section 2.3.3.

699 QA Test Extension Based on Grace Period N N A ARP, Subpart H ° Report when claiming a QA test deadline extension under Appendix B, Section 2.2.4.

900 Certifications Y Y Y ARP 901 Certifications Y Y Y ARP 910 Comments Y Y Y ARP, Subpart H ° ( See supplementary reporting instructions)

920 Comments O O O ARP, Subpart H 940 Certifications Y Y Y Subpart H 941 Certifications Y Y Y Subpart H 999 Contact Information O O O ARP, Subpart H 5 SUPPLEMENTARY EDR REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS FOR PEMS For a unit with an approved petition to use a predictive emissions monitoring system ( PEMS), use the following supplementary instructions, in conjunction with the EDR version 2.2 Reporting Instructions document, to prepare the required EDR submittals.

RT 320 Monitoring System ID ( 10). Report the monitoring system ID ( from RT 510, column 13) of the PEMS used to determine the NO x emission rate during the hour.

F Factor ( 26). Leave this field blank.

Average NOx Emission Rate for the Hour ( 36). Report the average unadjusted NO x emission rate for the hour ( lb/ mmBtu), rounded to three decimal places, as determined by the PEMS. For hours in which you use missing data procedures, leave this field blank.

Adjusted Average NOx Emission Rate for the Hour ( 42). For each hour in which you report NO x emission rate in column 36, apply the appropriate adjustment factor ( 1.000 or the BAF) to the unadjusted average emission rate, and report the result rounded to three decimal places. For each hour in which you use missing data procedures, report the appropriate substitute value.

Formula ID ( 50). Leave this field blank.

Method of Determination Code ( 53). Report " 03" when you use the PEMS to determine the NO x emissions rate. Report " 12" when you report the fuel specific maximum NO x emission rate ( e. g., during hours of startup or shutdown or when NO x controls ( if any) are not functioning properly). During hours when you use other missing data procedures, report the appropriate MODC listed in the EDR instructions.

RT 328 NOx Methodology for the Hour ( 45). Report " NOXR PEMS".

RT 510 The PEMS monitoring system consists of either one or two data acquisition and handling system ( DAHS) components. For single component PEMS systems or for systems where the PEMS software and standard DAHS software have the same manufacturer/ provider, model or version number, etc., report one RT 510 for the PEMS system. If the PEMS software and the standard DAHS software have different manufacturer/ providers, model or version numbers, etc., report each as a separate RT 510 with the same PEMS monitoring system ID.

Component ID ( 10). Report the three character alphanumeric ID for each DAHS component.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Create a unique three character alphanumeric ID for each PEMS monitoring system. Define a separate NOX PEMS system for each fuel type. For sources 6 switching from NO x CEMS or Appendix E to PEMS, do not re use the CEMS or Appendix E system ID numbers.

System Parameter Monitored ( 17). Report " NOX" for the system parameter monitored.

Primary/ Backup Designation ( 21). Report " PE" to indicate that this is a predictive emissions monitoring system.

Component Type Code ( 23). Report " DAHS" as the component type code.

Sample Acquisition Method ( 27). Leave this field blank.

Manufacturer ( 30). Report the name of the manufacturer or developer of the software component.

Model/ Version ( 55). Report the model/ version of the software component.

Serial Number ( 70). Report the serial number, if applicable   otherwise leave blank.

RT 531 Parameter ( 10). Report " NORX" as the parameter monitored. ( You should report one 531 record for each fuel type.)

Default Value ( 14). Report the fuel specific maximum potential NO x emission rate ( MER), in units of lb/ mmBtu.

Units of Measure ( 27). Report " LBMMBTU".

Purpose or Intended Use ( 34). Report " MD" for missing data.

Type of Fuel ( 37). Report the fuel type code for the fuel. ( See the EDR Instructions for RT 531 for the list of available codes.)

Indicator of Use ( 40). Report " A" for any hour.

Source of Value ( 41). Report " DEF" for default value.

RT 550 Parameter ( 10). Report " NOX".

Monitoring System ID ( 14). Report the monitoring system ID, from RT 510, of the NOX PEMS system.

RT 556 Component ID ( 10). Report the PEMS component ID subject to recertification/ diagnostic 7 testing, if a specific component is involved. If the event is system, not component, specific, leave this field blank.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Report the monitoring system ID, from RT 510, of the NO x PEMS system.

Event Code ( 16). Report code " 99" ( i. e., " Other").

Code for Required Test ( 19). Codes for PEMS systems are:

80 PEMS daily QA/ QC, sensor validation system check, train or retrain ( if manufacturer recommends), sensor validation compliance alarm check, statistical tests, and normal operating level RATA and bias test;

81 PEMS daily QA/ QC, and PEMS check with reference method or portable analyzer;

Beginning of Conditionally Valid Period ( 31, 39). If conditional data validation is used, report the date and hour that the probationary PEMS daily QA/ QC test was successfully completed according to the provisions of § 75.20( b)( 3)( ii).

Note: For PEMS, you may only use conditional data validation if the " event" in column 16 requires RATA testing. If you elect to use conditional data validation, you must complete the RATA within the allotted time in § 75.20( b)( 3)( iv).

RT 585 Parameter ( 10). Report " NOXR" as the parameter code associated with the PEMS. Report one RT 585 for each generic fuel type combusted.

Monitoring Methodology ( 14). Report " PEMS" as the monitoring methodology for the PEMS.

Missing Data Approach for Methodology ( 28). Report " FSP75" for the fuel specific missing data approach for the PEMS methodology.

RT 610 Units of Measure ( 33). Report " 2" ( lb/ mmBtu) as the units of measure.

Value from CEM System Being Tested ( 34). Report the average value recorded by the PEMS, for each RATA run.

RT 611 Units of Measure ( 34). Report " 2" ( lb/ mmBtu) as the units of measure.

Arithmetic Mean of CEM Values ( 35). Report the arithmetic mean of all the RTs 610 PEMS values associated with the RATA. 8 Number of Load Levels Comprising Test ( 133). Report " 1" or " 3" ( if certification or recert).

BAF for a Multiple Load RATA ( 134). Leave this field blank.

RT 624 Component ID ( 10). Report the PEMS software component ID from RT 510.

Monitoring System ID ( 13). Report the NO x monitoring system ID from RT 510.

Parameter ( 16). Report " NOX".

QA Test Activity Description ( 30). Fill in appropriately.

Reason for Test ( 51). Report " Q".

QA Test Code ( 53). Report one of the following codes, as appropriate:

04 PEMS daily QA/ QC 05 Periodic check of PEMS accuracy with a portable analyzer, or reference method RT 910 Text ( 4). Briefly describe the PEMS.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 551-553]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82415; File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Procedures for
the Exercise of F&O Options Contracts

December 28, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 20, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been primarily prepared by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the
proposal was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is to modify
certain provisions of the ICE Clear Europe Procedures (the
``Procedures'') \5\ applicable to the exercise of F&O option contracts
in order to align the Procedures with recent changes to ICE Futures
Europe (the ``Exchange'' or ``IFEU'') rules for certain energy option
contracts (the ``Affected Contracts'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Procedures or the ICE Clear Europe
Clearing Rules.
    \6\ These contracts include ICE Futures West Texas Intermediate
Light Sweet Crude Oil Options Contract; ICE Futures West Texas
Intermediate Light Sweet Crude Oil (CAD Denominated) Options
Contract; ICE Futures West Texas Intermediate Light Sweet Crude Oil
Weekly Options Contract; ICE Futures New York Harbour Heating Oil
Options Contract; and ICE Futures New York Harbour Unleaded Gasoline
Blendstock (RBOB) Options Contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed changes is to amend certain provisions
of the Procedures applicable to the exercise of F&O option contracts in
order to align the Procedures with changes to the Exchange rules for
the Affected Contracts.
    The amendments to the Procedures principally address the following
matters:
Exercise of At-The-Money Options
    The Procedures are being revised to contemplate automatic exercise
of call options that are at-the-money on the expiration date, where the
relevant Exchange contract specifications so provide.
Exercise Instructions on the Expiration Date
    The Procedures are also being revised to contemplate that some
options cannot be electively (as opposed to automatically) exercised or
abandoned on the expiration date, where the relevant Exchange contract
specifications so provide.
    Both sets of changes are intended to be consistent with the revised
contract specifications for the Affected Contracts, which will feature
automatic exercise of at-the-money call options and limitations on
elective exercise on the expiration date.
    The amendments to the Procedures also contain various other updates
and clarifications to option exercise procedures. The specified changes
being made to the Procedures are as follows:
    In paragraph 5.1, a definition of `At The Money' has been added.
    Several provisions have been updated to change terminology from
``manual exercise'' to ``elective exercise'' and clarify that elective
exercise instructions or other notices may be submitted electronically
in accordance with relevant technical specifications in effect
(including via API) as well as manually via the ICE systems. These
include paragraphs 5.2(b)(i), 5.3(a), 5.3(b), 5.4(a), 5.4(b) and
5.5(c).
    Paragraph 5.2(c) has been revised to provide that the default
settings to be applied for purpose of automatic exercise will be
specified in the contract terms of the Exchange.
    In paragraph 5.3(b), a clarification has been made that that this
section refers to early exercise only.
    In paragraph 5.5(b), amendments have been made to reflect that
Exchange contract terms may state that automatic exercise will apply to
at-the-money options, as discussed above.
    In paragraph 5.5(d), an unnecessary statement concerning
consequences of failure to contact the clearing house regarding
exercise difficulties has been removed.
    In paragraph 5.6, text has been added to include the determination
of whether options are at and out of the money. Examples in paragraph
5.6(b) have been removed as unnecessary and outdated in light of the
current changes.
    Paragraph 5.7(a) has been amended to provide that the Exchange
contract terms for a particular option will determine whether elective
exercise and/or abandon notifications can be submitted on the relevant
expiry date, as discussed above.
    In paragraph 5.7(b), minor changes have been made to improve and
correct wording and report names.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
amendments align exercise procedures for F&O option contracts with
recent changes to relevant Exchange rules, and make certain other
updates to such procedures. Specifically, the amendments revise
exercise procedures to permit automatic exercise of at-the-money call
options and to provide limitations on elective exercise on expiry day,
where provided in the Exchange rules. The changes thus facilitate
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of F&O option contracts,
consistent with the relevant exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) \10\ requires that each covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and
effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the
markets it serves, among other matters. As discussed above, the
amendments update exercise procedures with respect to option contracts
to more effectively meet the requirements of its participants and the
F&O option markets served by ICE Clear Europe, and align with
particular Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(21)(i) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments
modify certain provisions of the

Procedures applicable to the exercise of options to align the
Procedures with recent changes to the Exchange rules, and to make
certain other clarifications and updates. ICE Clear Europe does not
believe the amendments would affect competition among clearing members
or adversely affect the cost of clearing, the market for clearing
services generally or access to clearing in these products by clearing
members or other market participants.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
amendments.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission and Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \12\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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-ICEEU-2017-015 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-ICEEU-2017-015. 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, security-based
swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission or advance notice 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
Section, 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
filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear Europe's website
at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    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-ICEEU-2017-015 and should be
submitted on or before January 25, 2018.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28437 Filed 1-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


## 11.6.2019: Production run for TN model
## 12.17.2019: Cleaned and commented

tn.model <- function(df1, varout = NULL, runmod = F) {
    require(rstan)
    nchains <- 6    # number of chains

    ecosel <- 65              # pick ecoregion
    chltarg <- 10             # pick chl target
    doc0 <- 5                 # DOC

    load("tpchldat.rda")
    source("logtick.exp.R")

    ## omit records that are missing data
    incvec <- ! is.na(df1$ntl.result) & ! is.na(df1$no3no2.result) &
        ! is.na(df1$chl) & ! is.na(df1$doc.result)
    cat("N omitted due to missing records:", sum(!incvec), "\n")
    df1 <- df1[incvec,]
    print(nrow(df1))

    ## drop chl = 0
    incvec <- df1$chl > 0
    df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    ## drop HI
    incvec <- df1$st.nla2012 == "HI"
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]
    print(sum(incvec))

    ## compute TN-DIN and drop values that are <= 0
    df1$tkn <- df1$ntl.result - df1$no3no2.result
    incvec <- df1$tkn <= 0
    cat("TKN <= 0:", sum(incvec), "\n")
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]

    ## select index sites
    incvec <- df1$sample.type == "MICX"
    df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    ## reset state and L3 ecoregion factors
    df1$state <- factor(df1$st.nla2012)
    df1$statenum <- as.numeric(df1$state)
    df1$us.l3code <- factor(df1$us.l3code)
    df1$econum <- as.numeric(df1$us.l3code)

    ## center chl and doc
    ## use same chl scale as TP model
    df1$chl.sc <- df1$chl/chlsc

    docsc <- exp(mean(log(df1$doc.result)))
    df1$doc.sc <- df1$doc.result/docsc

    ## center tn and nox
    tnsc <- exp(mean(log(df1$ntl.result)))
    df1$tn.sc <- df1$ntl.result/tnsc
    df1$nox.sc <- df1$no3no2.result/tnsc

    tnchldat <- df1[, c("chl", "chl.sc", "tkn", "doc.sc", "doc.result",
                        "statenum", "state", "ntl.result", "tn.sc",
                        "no3no2.result", "nox.sc", "index.lat.dd",
                        "index.lon.dd", "econum", "us.l3code")]
    save(tnchldat, docsc,tnsc, file = "tnchldat.rda")

    datstan <- list(n = nrow(df1),
                    neco = max(df1$econum),econum = df1$econum,
                    tn = df1$tn.sc,
                    nox = df1$nox.sc,
                    doc = df1$doc.sc,
                    chl = df1$chl.sc)

    print(str(datstan))

    modstan <- '
        data {
            int n;                // number of samples
            int neco;            // number of ecoregions
            int econum[n];       // ecoregion of each sample
            vector[n] tn;        // scaled TN
            vector[n] chl;       // scaled chl
            vector[n] nox;       // scaled NOx
            vector[n] doc;       // scaled DOC
        }
        parameters {
            real muk;                // mean value of exponent on chl
            real mud[2];              // mean value of model coefficients
            real<lower = 0> sigd[2]; // SD of model coefficients among ecoregions
            matrix[neco,2] etad;
            real<lower = 0> sigtn;  // measurement error of tn
        }
        transformed parameters {
            matrix[neco,2] d;       // ecoregion-specific coefficients
            for (i in 1:2) d[,i] = mud[i] + sigd[i]*etad[,i];
        }
        model {
            vector[n] v;
            muk ~ normal(1,0.5);    // small amount of information for k
            mud ~ normal(0,4);
            sigd ~ cauchy(0,4);
            for (i in 1:2) etad[,i] ~ normal(0,1);
            sigtn ~ cauchy(0,3);

           for (i in 1:n) v[i] = exp(d[econum[i],1])*doc[i] +
                                 exp(d[econum[i],2])*chl[i]^muk +
                                  nox[i];
            tn ~ lognormal(log(v), sigtn);
        }
    '
    if (runmod) {
        rstan_options(auto_write = TRUE)
        options(mc.cores = nchains)
        fit <- stan(model_code = modstan,
                    data = datstan, iter = 900, chains = nchains,
                    warmup = 300, thin = 2)
        return(fit)
    }

    grey.t <- adjustcolor("grey39", alpha.f = 0.5)

    d <- apply(varout$d, c(2,3), mean)

    k <- mean(varout$muk)

    draw <- d
    draw[,1] <- d[,1] - log(docsc) + log(tnsc)
    draw[,2] <- d[,2] - k*log(chlsc) + log(tnsc)

    print("*** ecoregion specific coefs ***")
    print(range(exp(draw[,1])))
    print(range(exp(draw[,2])))

    # merge in coefficient to main file
    dftemp <- data.frame(econum = 1:length(d),draw, d, k)
    names(dftemp) <- c("econum", "draw1", "draw2", "d1", "d2", "k")
    df1 <- merge(df1, dftemp, by = "econum")

    # save coefficients for mapping
    dftemp <- merge(dftemp, unique.data.frame(df1[, c("econum", "us.l3code")]),
                    by = "econum")

    coefs <- dftemp
    save(coefs, file= "coefs.rda")

    # print numerical summaries of parameters
    print("d1")
    print(exp(quantile(varout$mud[,1] - log(docsc) + log(tnsc),
                       prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))))
    print("d2")
    print(exp(quantile(varout$mud[,2] - varout$muk*log(chlsc) + log(tnsc),
                       prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))))

    print("k")
    print(quantile(varout$muk, prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95)))

    ## calculate predicted TN
    df1$predout <- log(exp(df1$d1)*df1$doc.sc +
                           exp(df1$d2)*df1$chl.sc^df1$k) + log(tnsc)

    ## PLOT: Full data set pred.v.obs
    png(width = 3, height = 3, pointsize = 7, units = "in", res = 600,
        file = "predobs.png")
    par(mar = c(4,4,1,1), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))
    plot(df1$predout, log(df1$tkn), xlab = expression(Predicted~TN-DIN~(mu*g/L)),
         ylab = expression(Observed~TN-DIN~(mu*g/L)),
         pch = 21, col = "grey39", bg = "white", axes = F)
    logtick.exp(0.001, 10,  c(1,2), c(F,F))
    abline(0,1)
    dev.off()
    rms <- sqrt(sum((df1$predout - log(df1$tkn))^2)/
                    nrow(df1))
    cat("RMS:", rms, "\n")

    # PLOT: Pred.v.obs by state
    pdf(file = "plots.pdf", width = 9, height = 6, pointsize = 10)
    par(mar = c(4,4,3,2), mfrow = c(2,3), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))
    for (i in 1:max(df1$econum)) {
        incvec <- df1$econum == i
##        plot(df1$predout[incvec], log(df1$tkn)[incvec], axes = F, xlab = "Predicted TN-DIN",
##             ylab = "Obs TN-DIN", pch = 21, col = "grey39", bg = "white",
##             main = i)
        plot(log(df1$chl.sc[incvec]), log(df1$tn.sc[incvec]-df1$nox.sc[incvec]),
             main = i, axes = F)
        abline(d[i,2], k)

        logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))
#        abline(0,1)
    }
    dev.off()

    # PLOT: Chl v. TN, DOC v. TN  (Fig 31)
    png(width = 6, height = 2.5, pointsize =8, units = "in", res = 600,
        file = "tnchl.png")
    par(mar = c(4,4,1,1), mfrow = c(1,2), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))

    plot(log(df1$chl), log(df1$ntl.result),
         col = "grey", pch = 21,
         bg = "white", axes = F, xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
         ylab = expression(TN-DIN~(mu*g/L)))
    logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))
    x <- seq(min(log(df1$chl.sc)), max(log(df1$chl.sc)), length = 50)
    xraw <- x + log(chlsc)
    predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow = length(x))
    for (i in 1:length(x)) {
        y <- varout$mud[,2] + varout$muk*x[i] + log(tnsc)
        predout[i,] <- quantile(y, prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))
    }
    polygon(c(xraw, rev(xraw)), c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
            col = grey.t, border= NA)
    lines(xraw, predout[,2])

    plot(log(df1$doc.result), log(df1$ntl.result), col = "grey", pch = 21,
         bg = "white", axes = F, xlab = "DOC (mg/L)",
         ylab = expression(TN-DIN~(mu*g/L)))
    logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))
    x <- seq(min(log(df1$doc.sc)), max(log(df1$doc.sc)), length = 50)
    xraw <- x + log(docsc)
    for (i in 1:length(x)) {
        y <- varout$mud[,1] + x[i] + log(tnsc)
        predout[i,] <- quantile(y, prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))
    }
    polygon(c(xraw, rev(xraw)), c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
            col = grey.t, border= NA)
    lines(xraw, predout[,2])
    dev.off()

    ieco <- which(levels(df1$us.l3code) == ecosel)

#    doc.mn <- tapply(df1$doc.sc, df1$econum, function(x) mean(log(x)))
#    print(exp(doc.mn[ieco]+log(docsc)))
    doc0.sc <- doc0/docsc

    grey.t <- adjustcolor("grey39", alpha.f = 0.5)
                                        # calculate parameters

    incvec <- df1$econum == ieco
    x <- seq(min(log(df1$chl.sc)), max(log(df1$chl.sc)), length = 50)
    xraw <- x + log(chlsc)
    predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow = length(x))
    predout2 <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow = length(x))

    for (i in 1:length(x)) {
        y <- varout$d[,ieco,2]  + varout$muk*x[i] + log(tnsc)
        predout[i,] <- quantile(y, prob = c(0.10, 0.5, 0.90))
        y2 <- exp(varout$d[,ieco,1])*doc0.sc +
            exp(varout$d[,ieco,2])*exp(x[i])^varout$muk
        predout2[i,] <- quantile(log(y2) + log(tnsc), prob = c(0.10, 0.5, 0.9))
    }

    cat("Median DOC for ecoregion:", median(df1$doc.result[incvec]), "\n")

    ## Figure 32
    dev.new()
    par(mgp = c(2.3,1,0), bty = "l", mar = c(4,4,1,1))
    plot(log(df1$chl), log(df1$tn.sc*tnsc - df1$nox.sc*tnsc), type = "p",
         axes = F, xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
         ylab = expression(TN-DIN~(mu*g/L)), col = "grey80",
         pch = 21, bg = "white")
    logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))
    points(log(df1$chl)[incvec], log(df1$tn.sc*tnsc - df1$nox.sc*tnsc)[incvec],
           pch = 21, col = "black", bg = "grey")

    polygon(c(xraw, rev(xraw)), c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
            col  = grey.t, border = NA)
    lines(xraw, predout[,2])
    polygon(c(xraw, rev(xraw)), c(predout2[,1], rev(predout2[,3])),
            col  = grey.t, border = NA)
    lines(xraw, predout2[,2], lty = "dashed")

    crit1 <- approx(xraw, predout[,1], log(chltarg))$y
    crit2 <- approx(xraw, predout2[,1], log(chltarg))$y

    incvec <- df1$tn.sc > df1$nox.sc
    ylo <- min(log(df1$tn.sc[incvec]*tnsc - df1$nox.sc[incvec]*tnsc)) -
        0.04*diff(range(log(df1$tn.sc[incvec]*tnsc - df1$nox.sc[incvec]*tnsc)))
    xlo <- min(log(df1$chl)) - 0.04*diff(range(log(df1$chl)))
    segments(xlo, crit1,
             log(chltarg), crit1,  col = "red")
    segments(xlo, crit2,
             log(chltarg), crit2,  col = "red")
    segments(log(chltarg), crit2,
             log(chltarg), ylo, col = "red")
    segments(xlo, crit1,
             xlo, crit2, col = "red", lwd = 3)

    cat("TN Criterion:", round(exp(crit2)), "\n")

    stop()

}
## save extracted variables to varout to post-process
varout.n <- extract(fitout, pars = c("d", "k", "mud"))
tn.model(dat.merge.all, varout.n, runmod = F)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77173-77174]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30274]

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

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 17a-13, SEC File No. 270-27, OMB Control No. 3235-0035.

    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
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-13 (17 CFR 240.17a-
13) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-13(b) (17 CFR 240.17a-13(b)) generally requires that at
least once each calendar quarter, all registered brokers-dealers
physically examine and count all securities held and account for all
other securities not in their possession, but subject to the broker-
dealer's control or direction. Any discrepancies between the broker-
dealer's securities count and the firm's records must be noted and,
within seven days, the unaccounted for difference must be recorded in
the firm's records. Rule 17a-13(c) (17 CFR 240.17a-13(c)) provides that
under specified conditions, the count, examination, and verification of
the broker-dealer's entire list of securities may be conducted on a
cyclical basis rather than on a certain date. Although Rule 17a-13 does
not require broker-dealers to file a report with the Commission,
discrepancies between a broker-dealer's records and the securities
counts may be required to be reported, for example, as a loss on Form
X-17a-5 (17 CFR 248.617), which must be filed with the Commission under
Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR 240.17a-5). Rule 17a-13 exempts broker-
dealers that limit their business to the sale and redemption of
securities of registered investment companies and interests or
participation in an insurance company separate account and those who
solicit accounts for federally insured savings and loan associations,
provided that such persons promptly transmit all funds and securities
and hold no customer funds and securities. Rule 17a-13 also does not
apply to certain broker-dealers required to register only because they
effect transactions in securities futures products.
    The information obtained from Rule 17a-13 is used as an inventory
control device to monitor a broker-dealer's ability to account for all
securities held in transfer, in transit, pledged, loaned, borrowed,
deposited, or otherwise subject to the firm's control or direction.
Discrepancies between the securities counts and the broker-dealer's
records alert the Commission and applicable self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') to those firms experiencing back-office
operational issues.
    Currently, there are approximately 4,462 broker-dealers registered
with the Commission. However, given the variability in their
businesses, it is difficult to quantify how many hours per year each
broker-dealer spends complying with Rule 17a-13. As noted, Rule 17a-13
requires a respondent to account for all securities in its possession
or subject to its control or direction. Many respondents hold few, if
any, securities; while others hold large quantities. Therefore, the
time burden of complying with Rule 17a-13 will depend on respondent-
specific factors, including a broker-dealer's size, number of
customers, and proprietary trading activity. The staff estimates that
the average time spent per respondent is 100 hours per year on an
ongoing basis to maintain the records required under Rule 17a-13. This
estimate takes into account the fact that more than half of the 4,462
respondents--according to

financial reports filed with the Commission--may spend little or no
time complying with the rule, given that they do not do a public
securities business or do not hold inventories of securities. For these
reasons, the staff estimates that the total compliance burden per year
is 446,200 hours (4,462 respondents x 100 hours/respondent).
    The records required to be made by Rule 17a-13 are available only
to Commission examination staff, state securities authorities, and
applicable SROs. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, and the Commission's rules thereunder
(17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish
or make available information contained in any reports, summaries,
analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or
in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and
records of any person or any other investigation.
    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 has
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 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: December 16, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30274 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6240-6241]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02048]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88075; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Provide
an Exemption to Certain Governance Requirements for Series of Managed
Portfolio Shares Listed on the Exchange Pursuant to Rule 14.11(k)

January 29, 2020.
    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 January 22, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to provide an exemption to certain governance requirements
for series of Managed Portfolio Shares listed on the Exchange pursuant
to Rule 14.11(k).
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On December 16, 2019, the Commission approved an Exchange proposal
to adopt BZX Rule 14.11(k) related to the listing and trading of
Managed Portfolio Shares \5\ on the Exchange.\6\ Currently, Rule
14.10(e)(1)(E) provides an exemption to certain audit committee
requirements provided under Rule 14.10(c)(3) for funds listed on the
Exchange that are Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares.
Specifically, Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E) provides that ``management investment
companies that are Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund Shares, as
defined in Rules 14.11(c) and 14.11(i), are exempt from the Audit
Committee requirements set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(3), except for the
applicable requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Managed Portfolio Share'' means a security that
(a) represents an interest in an investment company registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company'')
organized as an open-end management investment company, that invests
in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's
investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's
investment objectives and policies; (b) is issued in a Creation Unit
(as defined in Rule 14.11(k)(3)(F)), or multiples thereof, in return
for a designated portfolio of instruments (and/or an amount of cash)
with a value equal to the next determined net asset value and
delivered to the Authorized Participant (as defined in the
Investment Company's Form N-1A filed with the Commission) through a
Confidential Account (as defined in Rule 14.11(k)(3)(D)); (c) when
aggregated into a Redemption Unit (as defined in Rule
14.11(k)(3)(G)), or multiples thereof, may be redeemed for a
designated portfolio of instruments (and/or an amount of cash) with
a value equal to the next determined net asset value delivered to
the Confidential Account for the benefit of the Authorized
Participant; and (d) the portfolio holdings for which are disclosed
within at least 60 days following the end of every fiscal quarter.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87759 (December 16,
2019), 84 FR 70223 (December 20, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-047) (the
``MPS Approval Order''). The Exchange notes that it does not
currently list any series of Managed Portfolio Shares, so the
proposed change would only have an impact if the Exchange listed
Managed Portfolio Shares in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managed Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares are exempted from the
requirements of Rule 14.10(c)(3) because they are otherwise subject to
the accounting and auditing requirements of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (the ``1940 Act''), including Section 32(a).\7\ Because Managed
Portfolio Shares are also subject to the accounting and auditing
requirements under the 1940 Act and are so similarly situated to
Managed Fund Shares and only to a slightly lesser extent Index Fund
Shares,\8\ the Exchange believes that Managed Portfolio Shares should
be subject to and exempt from the same corporate governance
requirements associated with listing on the Exchange. As such, the
Exchange is proposing to make a change to amend Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E) in
order to add Managed Portfolio Shares to the list of product types
listed on the Exchange that are exempted from the Audit Committee
requirements set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(3), except for the applicable
requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-31.
    \8\ For each of Managed Fund Shares and Managed Portfolio Shares
a share represents an interest in an Investment Company organized as
an open-end management investment company that invests in a
portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's
investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's
investment objectives and policies. See MPS Approval Order at 70224
for additional information. For Index Fund Shares, the primary
difference is that the Investment Company seeks to provide
investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield
performance or total return performance of a specified index, rather
than simply a portfolio selected by the Investment Company's
investment adviser.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this change to amend Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E)
in order to add Managed Portfolio Shares to a list of product types
listed on the Exchange, including Index Fund Shares and Managed Fund
Shares, that are exempted from the Audit Committee requirements set
forth in Rule

14.10(c)(3), except for the applicable requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3
is consistent with the Act because it is meant only to subject Managed
Portfolio Shares to the same corporate governance requirements
currently applicable to the very similar product structures of Managed
Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would better allow issuers of
Managed Portfolio Shares to comply with the Exchange's governance
requirements in a manner generally consistent with other product types,
which the Exchange believes will help promote competition among
products listed on the Exchange.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \15\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposal may become operative upon filing. The Exchange stated
that it believes that waiving the operative delay will allow any series
of Managed Portfolio Shares that lists on the Exchange in the near
future to take advantage of this exemption to certain audit committee
requirements and not have to either delay launch or take short-term
remedial measures to comply with all requirements of Rule 14.10(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
appropriate because, as the Exchange stated, the rule proposal is
requesting an exemption to certain audit committee requirements that is
currently granted to Managed Fund Shares and Index Fund Shares, and
there are no unique issues associated with proving such an exemption to
Managed Portfolio Shares that have not already been considered by the
Commission or that would warrant disparate treatment. Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-010 and should be submitted
on or before February 25, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02048 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P