[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24771-24772]
[DOCID:fr05my10-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61987; File No. SR-C2-2010-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Certain Order Routing and Market-Maker Rules

April 27, 2010.
    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 April 23, 2010, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``Exchange''
or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a rule relating to order routing to
other exchanges and to adopt preferred market-maker rules. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary
and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, C2 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    C2 was recently registered as a national securities exchange under
Section 6 of the Exchange Act.\5\ When operational, C2 will operate an
all-electronic marketplace for the trading of listed options. It will
not maintain a physical trading floor. C2 is filing this proposed rule
change in order to add a linkage order routing rule. The rule is
identical to a rule adopted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') as part of the transition to the new
intermarket linkage plan (the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan). Under the new linkage, exchanges ensure order
protection by routing orders to other markets through broker-dealers.
The proposed rule adopts certain guidelines that would be applicable to
any routing services provided by C2 through a broker-dealer. Routing
services would be available to C2 permit holders only and are optional.
Permit holders that do not want orders routed can use the Immediate or
Cancel designation to avoid routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61152 (Dec. 10, 2009), 74 FR
66699 (Dec. 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, routing services will only be provided by routing
brokers that are not affiliated with the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange may not use a routing broker for which the Exchange or any
affiliate of the Exchange is the designated examining authority. For
each routing broker used by the Exchange, an agreement will be in place
between the Exchange and the routing broker that will, among other
things, restrict the use of any confidential and proprietary
information that the routing broker receives to legitimate business
purposes necessary for routing orders at the direction of the Exchange.
    The rule further requires the Exchange to provide routing services
in compliance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
thereunder, including, but not limited to, the requirements in Section
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The rule also requires
the Exchange to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between the Exchange and the routing broker,
and any other entity, including any affiliate of the routing broker,
and, if the routing broker or any of its affiliates engages in any
other business activities other than providing routing services to the
Exchange, between the segment of the routing broker or affiliate that
provides the other business activities and the segment of the routing
broker that provides the routing services.
    Under the proposed rule, the Exchange will determine the logic that
provides when, how, and where orders are routed away to other
exchanges. Further, the routing broker cannot change the terms of an
order or the routing instructions, nor does the routing broker have any
discretion about where to route an order. Lastly, the rule provides
that any bid or offer entered on the Exchange routed to another
exchange via a routing broker that results in an execution shall be
binding on the member that entered such bid/offer.
    The filing also proposes to adopt a Preferred Market-Maker rule and
a participation entitlement for Preferred Market-Makers (PMMs). The
proposed additions are virtually identical to rules governing the PMM
program on CBOE. A PMM program allows order senders to designate a
preferred Market-Maker for orders sent to the Exchange. If the PMM
meets certain requirements at the time the order is received, the PMM
is entitled to an enhanced participation on the trade (a participation
entitlement). Adopting a PMM program will provide C2 with greater
flexibility in attracting dedicated liquidity providers.
    Proposed Rule 8.13 provides that the Exchange may allow, on a
class-by-class basis, for the receipt orders that carry a designation
specifying a Market-Maker in that class as the ``Preferred Market-
Maker'' for that order. The PMM will receive a participation
entitlement for such order if the following provisions are met: (i) The
PMM is registered in the relevant option class; and (ii) the PMM is
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. The participation
entitlement shall be 40% when there are two or more Market-Makers also
quoting at the

NBBO on the Exchange, and 50% when there is only one other Market-Maker
quoting at the NBBO on the Exchange. In addition: (i) A PMM may not be
allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity that the PMM is
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; (ii) the participation
entitlement rate is based on the number of contracts remaining after
all public customer orders in the book at the best bid/offer on the
Exchange have been satisfied; and (iii) if a Preferred Market-Maker
receives a PMM participation entitlement, then no other participation
entitlements shall apply to such order.
    PMMs will be subject to heightened quoting requirements. More
specifically, PMMs must comply with the quoting obligations applicable
under Exchange rules and must provide continuous electronic quotes in
at least 90% of the series of each class for which it receives
Preferred Market-Maker orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under Rule 8.5(a)(1), C2 Market-Makers must maintain a
continuous (99% of the time) two-sided market in 60% of the series
of each registered class that have time to expiration of less than
nine months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 8.13 also allows the Exchange to implement a PMM
program for complex orders. The program is substantially similar to the
program for straight orders and is identical to the program in place
for CBOE.
    Corresponding changes to Rule 6.12 are also proposed to ensure that
the order execution and priority rule contemplates a participation
entitlement for PMMs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act in general and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) in particular in that, by making the linkage process
more efficient and ensuring certain safeguards are in place when
routing firms are used, it should promote just and equitable principles
of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest. Moreover, the Exchange believes that
adopting these rules will facilitate the trading of options in a
national market system by establishing more transparent routing
guidelines, and will facilitate the ability of preferred Market-Makers
to provide deeper liquidity.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2010-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2010-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\9\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of C2. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2010-001 and should be
submitted on or before May 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10459 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2443-2445]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31230; Amdt. No. 3832]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective February 7, 2019. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of February 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29 Room 104, Oklahoma
City, OK 73125. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2018.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35  [Amended]

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

Effective Upon Publication

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   AIRAC date       State         City           Airport          FDC No.        FDC date           Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31-Jan-19.......  MN......  Elbow Lake.....  Elbow Lake               8/0439        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
                                              Muni--Pride of                                   Orig-A.
                                              the Prairie.
31-Jan-19.......  MN......  Elbow Lake.....  Elbow Lake               8/0440        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14,
                                              Muni--Pride of                                   Orig-A.
                                              the Prairie.
31-Jan-19.......  MN......  Princeton......  Princeton Muni.          8/0630         12/4/18  NDB RWY 15, Amdt
                                                                                1.
31-Jan-19.......  AR......  El Dorado......  South Arkansas           8/1048        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22,
                                              Rgnl at                                          Orig-B.
                                              Goodwin Field.
31-Jan-19.......  AR......  El Dorado......  South Arkansas           8/1051        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4,
                                              Rgnl at                                          Orig-B.
                                              Goodwin Field.
31-Jan-19.......  AR......  El Dorado......  South Arkansas           8/1053        12/12/18  VOR/DME RWY 4,
                                              Rgnl at                                          Amdt 10B.
                                              Goodwin Field.
31-Jan-19.......  TX......  Follett........  Follett/                 8/1298         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35,
                                              Lipscomb                                         Orig.
                                              County.
31-Jan-19.......  TX......  Follett........  Follett/                 8/1299         12/4/18  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3.
                                              Lipscomb
                                              County.
31-Jan-19.......  IL......  Bloomington/     Central Il Rgnl          8/1335        12/12/18  ILS or LOC/DME RWY
                             Normal.          Arpt at                                          2, Orig-B.
                                              Bloomington-
                                              Normal.
31-Jan-19.......  CO......  Kremmling......  Mc Elroy                 8/1819         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig-
                                              Airfield.                                        A.
31-Jan-19.......  CO......  Kremmling......  Mc Elroy                 8/1820         12/4/18  VOR/DME-A, Amdt
                                              Airfield.                                        3A.
31-Jan-19.......  WI......  Oshkosh........  Wittman Rgnl...          8/2114         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9,
                                                                                Amdt 1A.
31-Jan-19.......  WI......  Tomahawk.......  Tomahawk Rgnl..          8/2121         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9,
                                                                                Amdt 2B.
31-Jan-19.......  WI......  Merrill........  Merrill Muni...          8/3780        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 7,
                                                                                Amdt 1.
31-Jan-19.......  CA......  Santa Monica...  Santa Monica             8/4090         12/4/18  VOR-A, Amdt 11.
                                              Muni.
31-Jan-19.......  NM......  Clayton........  Clayton Muni             8/5036        12/12/18  Takeoff Minimums
                                              Arpk.                                            and Obstacle DP,
                                                                                Amdt 1.
31-Jan-19.......  MO......  Trenton........  Trenton Muni...          8/5605        12/12/18  Takeoff Minimums
                                                                                and Obstacle DP,
                                                                                Orig.
31-Jan-19.......  MN......  Two Harbors....  Richard B                8/6308         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24,
                                              Helgeson.                                        Orig-B.
31-Jan-19.......  MN......  Two Harbors....  Richard B                8/6317         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6,
                                              Helgeson.                                        Orig-A.
31-Jan-19.......  AZ......  Phoenix........  Phoenix Deer             8/7177         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY
                                              Valley.                                          25L, Orig-B.
31-Jan-19.......  CO......  Cortez.........  Cortez Muni....          8/7321         12/4/18  VOR RWY 21, Amdt
                                                                                5A.
31-Jan-19.......  WI......  Ladysmith......  Rusk County....          8/7389        12/12/18  NDB RWY 32, Amdt
                                                                                3A.
31-Jan-19.......  WI......  Ladysmith......  Rusk County....          8/7391        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
                                                                                Orig-B.
31-Jan-19.......  TX......  Dallas.........  Dallas Love              8/7574         12/4/18  ILS or LOC RWY
                                              Field.                                           31R, ILS RWY 31R
                                                                                (SA CAT I AND
                                                                                II), Amdt 7.
31-Jan-19.......  TX......  Dallas.........  Dallas Love              8/7575         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
                                              Field.                                           31R, Amdt 3.
31-Jan-19.......  TX......  Dallas.........  Dallas Love              8/7578         12/4/18  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY
                                              Field.                                           31R, Orig-B.
31-Jan-19.......  MT......  Kalispell......  Glacier Park             8/7761        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 30,
                                              Intl.                                            Amdt 1.
31-Jan-19.......  NV......  Elko...........  Elko Rgnl......          8/7899         12/4/18  VOR/DME-B, Amdt 5.
31-Jan-19.......  NV......  Elko...........  Elko Rgnl......          8/7904         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6,
                                                                                Orig.
31-Jan-19.......  NV......  Elko...........  Elko Rgnl......          8/7906         12/4/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24,
                                                                                Amdt 1.
31-Jan-19.......  NV......  Elko...........  Elko Rgnl......          8/7908         12/4/18  LDA/DME RWY 24,
                                                                                Amdt 6.
31-Jan-19.......  KS......  Newton.........  Newton-City-             8/9055        12/12/18  ILS OR LOC RWY 17,
                                              County.                                          Amdt 4A.
31-Jan-19.......  KS......  Newton.........  Newton-City-             8/9057        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35,
                                              County.                                          Orig-A.
31-Jan-19.......  KS......  Newton.........  Newton-City-             8/9059        12/12/18  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17,
                                              County.                                          Orig-A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-01135 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


CAIR Replacement Rule

Discussions between NACAA and EPA

April 2, 2009

I.  Introduction

	On Thursday, April 2, 2009, EPA held a meeting and call with the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) to discuss the CAIR
replacement rule.  The brief summary that follows covers the key issues
discussed.  More detailed notes, including a list of all participants in
the call, are being prepared.

II.  EPA Opening Comments

	Sam Napolitano, CAMD, began with a short introduction, explaining that
EPA was beginning the process of creating a replacement rule for CAIR.
The Agency is reviewing all options, setting up analyses, and preparing
technical models.  The goal is to finalize a replacement rule within two
years.

	The primary objectives are to help states comply with the NAAQS and to
reduce interstate transport.  Therefore, EPA has decided that it would
be best to start working with state and local air agencies immediately.
EPA would like to hear from the state and local air agencies about what
type of replacement rule would most help them meet air quality
requirements.  Sam stressed that this is the beginning of a dialogue
process, and that EPA intends to continue these types of discussions
throughout the rule development process.

	This is a chance for the state and local air agencies to talk to the
key EPA staff that will actually develop and write the rules, as well as
the OGC attorneys assigned to the rule development.  Sam stressed that
EPA is interested in hearing NACAA’s thoughts and concerns.
Everything is on the table as EPA puts together ideas for the new
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, who should arrive within
the next couple of weeks.

III.  NACAA Opening Comments

	Bill Becker, NACAA, thanked EPA for the opportunity to meet and share
ideas.  He noted that NACAA had five years ago highlighted deficiencies
with the CAIR program that were never addressed.  He expressed a sincere
hope that EPA could address those deficiencies during this rulemaking.
He explained NACAA’s three main concerns with the original CAIR as:
(1) reductions were not tough enough; (2) the breadth of sources covered
was not expansive enough; specifically EPA should consider cement kilns
and industrial boilers; and (3) the deadlines in CAIR did not match up
with the attainment deadlines that the states are required to meet.

	Bill indicated that states face serious consequences if they fail to
meet the attainment deadlines, and that in the original CAIR there was a
disconnect between what EPA was doing and what the states were required
to do by law.  He asked that EPA keep the states' needs in mind when
developing a rule and creating a schedule, specifically regarding
attainment deadlines.

IV.  Core Issues Outlined by EPA

	Sam Napolitano said that EPA would lay out the issues, but that he
would be unable to indicate how EPA would eventually proceed, as the
Agency is uncertain at present as to how to respond to the issues raised
by the CAIR court decision.  The purpose of this meeting is to gather
different ideas and thoughts to present to the new Assistant
Administrator for Air, whose responsibility it will be to decide how to
address the ramifications of the court decision.

	Sam invited Bill Harnett, OAQPS, to talk about the key issues EPA is
considering in the CAIR replacement rule.  He asked that speakers
identify themselves as notes of the meeting were being prepared and
would be shared with all participants on the call.

	Bill Harnett outlined the following major issues:

1.  Baseline

	What is the starting point? What is the baseline?  When the original
CAIR rule was developed there were many questions about how to set up a
baseline and what to take into account when creating the baseline.  The
situation has continued to change, and EPA would like to know how states
believe the baseline should be created, and what factors should be
considered in the baseline.

2.  Quantifying significant contribution

	Jim Ketcham-Colwill, OAR, explained that significant contribution is
one of the key issues from the court decision.  The court held that CAIR
failed to quantify adequately each state's significant contribution.
There are many smaller issues that come up under this general rubric,
but the key questions pivot on how significant contribution is
quantified.

3.  Remedy

	What remedy should be applied to the quantified significant
contribution?  What types of approaches should be considered?  Is the
trading option practical?

	Tad Aburn, asked whether EPA had considered bifurcating the process –
getting CAIR out as quickly as possible so reductions from EGUs can
happen as quickly as possible, and then separately addressing how to
satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D), which the new CAIR rule would be part of.
Sonja Rodman, OGC, noted that the idea of bifurcating the replacement
plan had been suggested during EPA's call with OTC.  She added that from
a legal perspective bifurcation might be possible, but that it would
require significant work.  EPA is required to address the section
110(a)(2)(D) findings of failure to submit, and using that authority
would be the fastest and easiest way to create a rule to address
transport.

	Tad Aburn, MDE, noted that the primary concern for the states was
getting reductions as fast as possible.  He suggested that EPA consider
solving transport through multiple programs, and that the Agency rely on
its section 110 authority for all of them.  Each rule could solve a
piece of the transport problem.  As long as the problems persist,
further rules will be required.

	EPA outlined some of the ideas brought up by the environmental NGOs,
which have asked EPA to take a holistic approach to the rulemaking.
Specifically, they have asked that EPA provide clear guidance as to what
regulations the Agency would be promulgating and the long term control
targets they envisioned for power plants.  Such guidance would allow
utilities to make comprehensive control plans that might include
shutting down or re-powering small, very dirty plants.

	NACAA members expressed interest in a holistic approach but were
concerned that it might slow down the process or increase the legal
risks.  The members noted that the primary concern for states is to get
reductions as fast as possible so they can meet the NAAQS.

4.  Affected Area/NAAQS

	Which states or regions should be covered by the rule?  What should the
timing of the rule look like?  Should EPA start with the existing NAAQS?
Or, should it try to integrate the newer standards into a replacement
rule? Timing becomes a key element when considering which standards to
target.

	Bill Harnett noted that other states had asked EPA to look at
industrial boilers and cement kilns, which the Agency was already
considering.  He also explained that some states had mentioned the
possibility of controls on products and other manufacturing processes
that contribute VOCs.  Dealing with products or VOCs would most likely
have to wait for a later rule, but he wanted NACAA to know that other
states had raised the issue and that EPA was aware of the concern.

V.  NACAA Response to Core Issues

1.  Baseline

Sheila Holman, NC DENR, suggested that EPA consider using 2012 as the
year against which to model the baseline because the 1997 ozone NAAQS
will be in effect and it will be one year before the attainment deadline
for daily PM2.5.

2.  Significant contribution

Tad Aburn said he was unclear as to why significant contribution had
become such a big concern under section 110(a)(2)(D).  He said his
understanding is that EPA must determine if a SIP contains adequate
measures to control transport.  Sonja Rodman replied that EPA had never
received a SIP that addressed section 110 in a context that did not rely
on a federal program.  Tad recommended linking section 110 to attainment
in all areas.  That would allow the Agency to develop a plan for
attainment in all areas, which would, by definition, satisfy section 110
requirements.

EPA agreed that SIPs containing controls sufficient to bring all areas
into attainment could be approved satisfying 110(a)(2)(D).  However, EPA
could not require states to over control.  Among other things, the D.C.
Circuit Court decision clearly instructed EPA not to overstep its legal
authority.  EPA wants to create a strong rule, but the Agency also
recognizes the likelihood of legal challenges.

Bill Becker noted that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not require the
NAAQS to be met in two or five years, but rather as expeditiously as
practicable.  He suggested that EPA could use the pressing need to meet
the NAAQS as a basis for authority to over-control.  Bill Harnett
replied that the CAA requires states to moves as expeditiously as
practicable, but only grants EPA authority when the states are unable to
meet the NAAQS.

John Paul, Dayton Regional Air Pollution Agency, suggested that modeling
might take into account a “birthday clause.”  He suggested doing
modeling runs with all utilities at the best level of control to see if
it would even be possible to go too far in terms of controls.

3.  Remedy

Bill Becker said his understanding of the CAIR court decision was that
trading could not be used as an option and he asked whether EPA had a
different understanding.  Sonja Rodman replied that EPA believes trading
is still a possibility, though some additional assurances may be needed.
 She suggested that in many ways the court decision was like a legal
minefield because the court was very clear that the way EPA had done the
CAIR rule was unacceptable.  However, the court was far less clear on
what would be acceptable.  Trading is one of several areas in which EPA
believes the court did not provide clear direction.

Tim Smith, OAQPS, noted that trading provides economic incentives to
reduce more and can often help states meet attainment deadlines faster.
Tad Aburn agreed and said that he supported trading.  However, he is
unsure if trading helps in making a section 110 demonstration.

Bill Becker also agreed that trading could be a powerful control option
and noted that most NACAA members also support trading.  However, the
members are concerned that allowing trading in a replacement rule could
make the rule legally vulnerable.  He cautioned that trading should be
used to get the best results, not the mediocre results under the
original CAIR.  He urged EPA to make sure that any future program used
trading to achieve the types of performance standards that should have
been achieved last time.

Amy Royden-Bloom, NACAA, suggested that if EPA designed a rule that got
everyone into attainment even with trading, then trading is OK because
section 110(a)(2)(D) has been satisfied and no one is over-controlled
because each state is integral to the success of the trading program.
If one state pulls out, whole program could fall apart.

NACAA members suggested putting BACT controls on EGUs, large industrial
boilers, and cement kilns because they believe that with that level of
control the states would be able to achieve attainment.  John Paul
pointed out that putting BACT controls on all large facilities was still
cheaper per ton than putting RACT controls on the smaller sources.  OGC
would have to figure out the legal justifications and how to deal with
concerns about over control.  Sam said it would be helpful to obtain
from state and local air agencies the cost/ton of RACT for smaller
sources, to compare with the cost of controls on EGUs.

4.  Affected Area/NAAQS

Bill Becker asked if EPA could outline how the Agency saw the
replacement CAIR rule development and implementation schedule fitting
into the states' attainment deadlines.

Bill Harnett replied that the first five year date had nearly passed; by
summer of 2009, controls must be in place to meet the 1997 NAAQS for
compliance in 2010.  The next compliance date is 2013, which means
controls must be in place by 2012.  EPA anticipates that 2012 would be
the earliest that any benefits could be realized from a replacement CAIR
program.

Bill Harnett said EPA was going as fast as the Agency believes possible,
and realizes that states will have difficulty with the earlier
compliance dates.  However, it takes time to get a good rule done and
additional time to get controls on once the rule is finalized.  EPA will
do everything it can to finish the rule quickly.  However, the top
priority is to develop a good rule that is legally defensible.

Bill Becker said NACAA would support EPA using the newer standards, or
at least building in a method to ratchet down the requirements as the
new standards came into play.  Tad Aburn said that he agreed and he
noted that on current red and orange ozone days, the amount of emissions
in Maryland from transport alone is over the newer standards.

Bill Becker also said NACAA would support considering cement kilns and
industrial boilers, and noted that NACAA had asked EPA to consider those
very sources five years ago during the original CAIR rulemaking process.

VI.  Conclusion

	Sam Napolitano concluded the call by saying that this is the first of a
series of teleconferences with state and local air agencies and other
stakeholders, including OTC, LADCO, CenSARA, industry representatives,
and environmental groups.  When this series has concluded, EPA will meet
with state and local air agencies again to report what EPA has heard
from all of the groups.  This will allow them to react and respond, and
to continue the general dialogue.

	Bill Becker thanked Sam for the opportunity to share ideas.  Given that
EPA intends to move very quickly with the rulemaking process, he asked
that open communication remain a priority.  Specifically, he asked that
EPA not close down options by limiting the scope of a proposed plan.  He
recommended that EPA propose a rule with multiple options, allowing the
Agency to choose which ones to make final based on comments and further
study.

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28657]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4526-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Delaware; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4526-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 5, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Delaware (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10195 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P