[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55492-55497]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98093; File No. SR-OCC-2023-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning Amendments to The Options Clearing Corporation's Capital
Management Policy and Cash and Investment Management Policy

August 9, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 3, 2023, The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ such that the proposed
rule change 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)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change would make certain administrative and
clarifying amendments to OCC's Capital Management Policy and Cash and
Investment Management Policy. Specifically, the proposed changes would:
(1) provide that Management will, at a minimum, review OCC's fee
schedule at each regularly scheduled Compensation and Performance
Committee (``CPC'') meeting, consistent with recent updates to the
OCC's Board of Director (``Board'') and Board-level committee
(``Committee'') charters, which require each Committee meet at least
four times per year, rather than quarterly as the Capital Management
Policy currently provides; (2) make certain other edits and additions
to the Capital Management Policy for clarity and consistency with OCC's
other policies, and (3) amend the Cash and Investment Management Policy
to better align the text of that policy to OCC Rules 604(a) and
1002(c), which provide separate treatment for cash deposited by
Clearing Members in respect of margin requirements and Clearing Fund
deposits, respectively.
    The proposed changes are included in confidential Exhibit 5 to File
No. SR-OCC-2023-006. Material proposed to be added is underlined and
material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text. All
terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein
have the same meaning as set forth in OCC's By-Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's current By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    As the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed
on national securities exchanges registered with the Commission, and
with respect to OCC's clearance and settlement of futures and stock
loan transactions, OCC maintains policies and procedures to manage the
risks borne by OCC as a central counterparty. One such risk that OCC
manages is general business risk--that is, the risk of potential
impairment to OCC's financial position resulting from a decline in
revenues or an increase in expenses. In order to manage this risk and
help to ensure that OCC can continue operations and services as a going
concern if general business losses materialize, OCC has filed, and the
Commission has approved,\6\ OCC's

Capital Management Policy, which provides the framework by which OCC
manages its capital and plans for replenishment of capital if
necessary. Other risks OCC manages include custody and investment risk.
To manage risks associated with holding and investing OCC's own cash
and the cash collected from Clearing Members,\7\ OCC has filed, and the
Commission has approved,\8\ OCC's Cash and Investment Management
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Establish OCC's
Persistent Minimum Skin-In-The-Game, Exchange Act Release No. 92038
(May 27, 2021), 86 FR 29861 (June 3, 2021) (SR-OCC-2021-003); Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No.
1, Concerning a Proposed Capital Management Policy That Would
Support the Option Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically
Important Financial Market Utility, Exchange Act Release No. 88029
(Jan. 24, 2020), 85 FR 5500 (Jan. 30, 2020) (SR-OCC-2019-007); see
also Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Notice of No
Objection to Advance Notice, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1,
Concerning a Proposed Capital Management Policy That Would Support
the Option Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically
Important Financial Market Utility, Exchange Act Release No. 87257
(Oct. 8, 2019), 84 FR 55194 (Oct. 15, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-805).
    \7\ OCC's investment of collateral deposited by Clearing Members
is limited to the investment of margin cash in overnight reverse
repurchase transactions in U.S. Government securities. See Exchange
Act Release No. 93916 (Jan. 6, 2022), 87 FR 1819, 1820 (Jan. 12,
2022) (SR-OCC-2021-014). OCC's management of risks related to
holding non-cash collateral deposited by Clearing Members is
addressed in other policies and procedures, including OCC's
Collateral Risk Management Policy. See, e.g., Exchange Act Release
No. 82311 (Dec. 13, 2017), 82 FR 60252 (Dec. 19, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-
008) (approving OCC's Collateral Risk Management Policy).
    \8\ See Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning the Option Clearing Corporation's Cash and Investment
Management, Exchange Act Release No. 94304 (Feb. 24, 2022), 87 FR
11776 (Mar. 2, 2022) (SR-OCC-2021-014); see also Notice of No
Objection to Advance Notice Concerning the Option Clearing
Corporation's Cash and Investment Management, Exchange Act No. 94270
(Feb. 17, 2022), 87 FR 10262 (Feb. 23, 2022) (SR-OCC-2021-803).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulations applicable to OCC require such risk management policies
to be reviewed on a specified periodic basis and approved by the Board
annually.\9\ Through annual reviews of its Capital Management Policy in
2021 and its Cash and Investment Management Policy in 2022, OCC's
management recommended, and the Board approved, certain administrative
and clarifying amendments to the Capital Management Policy and Cash and
Investment Management Policy. This proposed rule change primarily aims
to align the Capital Management Policy to the already revised cadence
of meetings reflected in the CPC charter, as well as to make
administrative edits, including textual revisions to clarify meaning, a
typographical correction, and a description conforming to OCC's current
template \10\ format. With respect to the Cash and Investment
Management Policy, this proposed rule change would better align that
policy's text with OCC's Rules 604(a) and 1002(c), which provide
separate treatment for cash deposited by Clearing Members in respect of
margin requirements and Clearing Fund deposits, respectively. This
proposed rule change would not alter other practices and procedures
described in the Capital Management Policy and the Cash and Investment
Management Policy and would not alter the rights or obligations of
Clearing Members or other market participants. Accordingly, OCC does
not believe such administrative changes to OCC's internal policies
would have any effect on Clearing Members or other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
    \10\ See infra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Purpose
    OCC is proposing to make certain administrative and clarifying
amendments to OCC's Capital Management Policy, and Cash and Investment
Management Policy identified and approved by the Board as part of the
annual review of such policies. Specifically, as discussed in more
detail below, the proposed changes to the Capital Management Policy
would: (1) provide that Management will, at a minimum, review the fee
schedule at each regularly scheduled CPC meeting, rather than
quarterly, which would align the frequency of such reviews with recent
updates to the Board and Committee charters that require each Committee
to meet at least four times per year, not necessarily quarterly; \11\
and (2) make certain other administrative edits and additions for
clarity and consistency with OCC's other policies, including to (i)
clarify the ways in which OCC may hold additional financial resources
for capital needs, (ii) modify verbiage to avoid confusion with
concepts addressed by other OCC rules, and (iii) conform the Capital
Management Policy to OCC's current template \12\ for its rule-filed
policies. The proposed changes to the Cash and Investment Management
Policy would clarify that interest earned on Clearing Fund cash, as
opposed to margin cash, held at a Federal Reserve Bank would accrue to
the benefit of Clearing Members, less a cash management fee, consistent
with OCC Rule 1002(c) and the intended meaning of the Cash and
Investment Management Policy as expressed in the rule filing that
established that policy.\13\ Interest or gain on investment of margin
cash would continue to accrue to OCC in accordance with existing OCC
Rule 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 94988 (May 26, 2022), 87 FR
33535, 33537-8 (June 2, 2022) (SR-OCC-2022-002); see also CPC
Charter, Section II.B, available at https://www.theocc.com/company-information/documents-and-archives/board-charters (``The Committee
shall meet at least four times a year.'').
    \12\ ``Template'' here refers to the format and organizational
structure for OCC's internal policies. Previous OCC filings have
made similar changes across other policies to conform them to OCC's
standard template. See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 96566 (Dec.
22, 2022), 87 FR 80207, 80210 (Dec. 29, 2022) (SR-OCC-2022-010)
(approving conforming changes across risk policies to remove policy-
specific sections concerning policy exceptions and violations in
connection with adoption of a section in OCC's Risk Management
Framework that uniformly covered those processes); Exchange Act
Release No. 93436 (Oct. 27, 2021), 86 FR 60499, 60500 (Nov. 2, 2021)
(SR-OCC-2021-010) (removing non-substantive items from OCC's rule-
filed policies, including repeated document titles, certain
introductory information, related policies and standards, related
procedures, and revision history).
    \13\ See infra note 25 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
Capital Management Policy
    Under the Capital Management Policy, OCC determines its Target
Capital Requirement, monitors its levels of shareholders' equity
(``Equity'') and liquid net assets funded by equity (``LNAFBE'') to
help ensure adequate financial resources are available for general
business obligations, and manages Equity levels, including by adjusting
OCC's fee schedule as appropriate and establishing a plan for accessing
additional capital should OCC's Equity fall below certain thresholds
(the ``Replenishment Plan'').\14\ In addition, OCC's Rules \15\ and
Capital Management Policy \16\ provide for OCC's skin-in-the-game,
including a Minimum Corporate Contribution \17\ and the use of LNAFBE
in excess of 110% of the Target Capital Requirement (i.e., the ``Early
Warning'' \18\ threshold under OCC's

Replenishment Plan) to cover losses arising from a Clearing Member's
default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88029 (Jan. 24, 2020), 85 FR
5500, 5501-03 (Jan. 30, 2020) (SR-OCC-2019-007).
    \15\ See OCC Rule 1006(e)(i).
    \16\ See Exchange Act Release No. 92038 (May 27, 2021), 86 FR
29861 (June 3, 2021) (SR-OCC-2021-003) (order approving changes to
OCC's Capital Management Policy and OCC Rule 1006(e) to establish
OCC's persistent minimum skin-in-the-game).
    \17\ OCC Rule 101(M)(1) defines the term ``Minimum Corporate
Contribution'' to mean the minimum level of OCC funds maintained
exclusively to cover credit losses or liquidity shortfalls. The
Minimum Corporate Contribution is determined by the Board from time
to time.
    \18\ The Capital Management Policy defines ``Early Warning'' as
when Equity less the Minimum Corporate Contribution falls below 110%
of the Target Capital Requirement. Management reviews the Early
Warning threshold on an annual basis. See Exchange Act Release No.
88029, 85 FR at 5502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Capital Requirement
    Pursuant to the Capital Management Policy, the Target Capital
Requirement is based on two components: (1) the amount of LNAFBE
determined by OCC to be necessary to ensure compliance with OCC's
regulatory obligations, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the
Exchange Act \19\ and (2) any additional amounts determined to be
necessary and appropriate for capital expenditures approved by OCC's
Board.\20\ With respect to the first component, OCC must set its Target
Capital Requirement at a level sufficient to maintain LNAFBE at least
equal to the greater of: (1) six months of OCC's current operating
expenses, (2) the amount determined by the Board to be sufficient to
ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and
services (``RWD Amount''),\21\ and (3) the amount determined by the
Board to be sufficient for OCC to continue operations and services as a
going concern if general business losses materialize. With respect to
the second component, the Capital Management Policy authorizes the
Board to increase the Target Capital Requirement by an amount to be
retained for capital expenditures. Alternatively, the Board may
determine to fund capital expenditures out of funds in excess of the
Target Capital Requirement. In making such a determination, the Board
would consider factors including, but not limited to, the amount of
funding required, the amount of Equity proposed to be retained, the
potential impact of the investment on OCC's operations, and the
duration of time over which funds would be accumulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
    \20\ In setting the Target Capital Requirement, OCC considers,
but is not bound by, its projected rolling twelve-months' operating
expenses pursuant to OCC's interpretation of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'') Regulation 39.11(a)(2). See 17 CFR
39.11(a)(2). Unlike SEC Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) and CFTC Regulation
39.11(e)(2), which concern the liquidity of the financial resources
to meet six-months' of operating expenses, the financial resources
OCC may count toward the CFTC's twelve-months' requirement is not
limited to LNAFBE or ``unencumbered, liquid financial assets.'' See
17 CFR 39.11(e)(2). OCC may count its ``own capital'' (i.e., Equity)
and ``[a]ny other financial resource deemed acceptable by the
[CFTC]'' toward the twelve-months' requirement. See 17 CFR
39.11(b)(2). Accordingly, the Capital Management Policy does not
require OCC to set its Target Capital Requirement--the amount of
LNAFBE it must maintain to meet its regulatory obligations--to equal
twelve-months' operating expenses.
    \21\ Management recommends an RWD Amount calculated on an annual
basis pursuant to the Capital Management Procedure based on the
assumptions in OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-down Plan. See
Exchange Act Release No. 88029, 85 FR at 5509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On an annual basis, OCC's Chief Financial Officer (``CFO'')
recommends a Target Capital Requirement for the coming year to OCC
management.\22\ Management reviews the CFO's recommendation and, as
appropriate, recommends the Target Capital Requirement to the CPC. The
CPC then reviews and, as appropriate, recommends the proposal to the
Board, which reviews and, as appropriate, approves the Target Capital
Requirement for the coming year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The CFO's recommendation is prepared in accordance with
OCC's Capital Management Procedure, which provides additional detail
supporting the Capital Management Policy. See Exchange Act Release
No. 86725 (Aug. 21, 2019), 84 FR 44944, 44945 (Aug. 27, 2019) (SR-
OCC-2019-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Schedule
    OCC's fee structure is designed by the Board in accordance with
Article IX, Section 9 of OCC's By-Laws. The current Capital Management
Policy provides that, on a quarterly basis, management will review
OCC's fee schedule and, considering factors including, but not limited
to, projected operating expenses, projected volumes, anticipated
cashflows and capital needs, recommend to the Board, or a Board-level
Committee to which the Board has delegated authority,\23\ whether a fee
increase, decrease or waiver should be made. If OCC's Equity is above,
in the aggregate, 110% of its Target Capital Requirement and other
approved capital needs, the Board may use such tools as it determines
appropriate to lower costs for Clearing Members, including lowering
fees, fee holidays or refunds.\24\ On an annual basis, management
reviews the operating margin level and, considering historical volume
variance and other relevant factors (including, but not limited to,
variance in revenue other than from clearing fees, such as interest
income), recommends to the Board, or a Committee to which the Board has
delegated authority, whether any changes should be made to OCC's
defined operating margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Board has delegated such authority to the CPC under the
CPC Charter. See supra note 11.
    \24\ When determining which, if any, tools would be appropriate,
the Board considers factors including, but not limited to,
projecting future volume, expenses, cashflow, capital needs and the
possibility and amount of unfunded obligations. During this process,
Equity must always remain above the ``Early Warning'' threshold. See
Exchange Act Release No. 87257 (Oct. 8, 2019), 84 FR 55194, 55196
(Oct. 15, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-805).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash and Investment Management Policy
    Among other things, OCC's Cash and Investment Management Policy
provides for how OCC may invest its own cash and cash deposited by
Clearing Members in respect of margin requirements or Clearing Fund
deposits. In recent filings, OCC explained that the policy would
provide that ``[i]nterest earned on Clearing Fund cash deposits held at
a Federal Reserve Bank would accrue to the benefit of Clearing Members,
less a cash management fee.'' \25\ However, the proposed text of the
policy submitted with the filing inadvertently did not qualify the
scope as limited to Clearing Fund cash deposits. OCC Rule 1002(c)
provides that interest on Clearing Fund cash deposits held at a Federal
Reserve Bank accrue to Clearing Members less a cash management fee,
consistent with the text of the policy.\26\ In contrast, under OCC Rule
604(a), interest earned on investments of cash deposited by Clearing
Members in respect of margin requirements accrues to the benefit of
OCC.\27\ No change to Rule 604(a) was intended by the proposed
implementation of OCC's Cash and Investment Management Policy.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Exchange Act Release No. 93916 (Jan. 6, 2022), 87 FR
1819, 1821 (Jan. 12, 2022) (SR-OCC-2021-014); Exchange Act Release
No. 93915 (Jan. 6, 2022), 87 FR 1814, 1815 (Jan. 12, 2022) (SR-OCC-
2021-803) (emphasis added).
    \26\ See OCC Rule 1002(c) (``Interest earned on cash deposits
held at a Federal Reserve Bank shall accrue to the benefit of
Clearing Members (calculated daily based on each Clearing Member's
pro rata share of Clearing Fund cash deposits), provided that each
such Clearing Member has provided OCC with all tax documentation as
OCC may from time to time require in order to effectuate such
payment, and all other interest earned on investments will accrue to
the benefit of [OCC].''). See also, Exchange Act Release No. 82657
(Feb. 8, 2018), 83 FR 6651 (Feb. 14, 2018) (SR-OCC-2018-005)
(implementing a cash management fee to cover administrative and
other operational expenses incurred by OCC in connection with
passing through to Clearing Members the interest earned on Clearing
Fund cash deposits held at an OCC account at a Federal Reserve
Bank).
    \27\ OCC Rule 604(a) (``Clearing Members may deposit U.S.
dollars in accordance with procedures acceptable to [OCC]. Funds so
deposited may from time to time be partially or wholly invested by
[OCC] for its account in Government securities, and any interest or
gain received or accrued on the investment of such funds shall
belong to [OCC].'')
    \28\ See Exchange Act Release No. 93916, 87 FR at 1820 (``OCC
does not propose to amend [Rule 604(a)] by this proposed rule
change.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes
(1) Fee Schedule Review
    Currently, the Capital Management Policy requires management to
review the fee schedule with the CPC ``[o]n a quarterly basis.'' The
proposed changes would amend this language to instead

require management to review the fee schedule ``[a]t regularly
scheduled CPC meetings.'' This change would align the fee schedule
review with the cadence of meetings prescribed in the Board and
Committee Charters, which OCC recently amended.\29\ While regular
meetings generally occur on a quarterly basis, the proposed change
would avoid the need to call special meetings to address the routine
review of the fee schedule if a regularly scheduled meeting happens to
fall at the beginning of the next quarter or the end of the last
quarter. For this reason, OCC aligned other periodic reviews identified
in the Committee Charters to occur at each regularly scheduled meeting,
as opposed to quarterly.\30\ OCC proposes to do the same with respect
to the cadence of fee schedule reviews in the Capital Management
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 11.
    \30\ See Exchange Act Release No. 94988, 87 FR at 33537-38
(approving amendments to the Audit Committee, Technology Committee
and CPC Charters to align the cadence of periodic reviews to each
regular meeting of the Committee, rather than ``quarterly'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Additional Textual Changes
    The proposed changes would also make other textual edits and
additions to the Capital Management Policy for clarity and consistency
with OCC's other policies. For one, OCC would amend the provision
concerning management of OCC's Equity to facilitate capital
expenditures to clarify OCC's intent that either of the two options
identified for doing so--(1) increasing the Target Capital Requirement
or (2) retaining the additional Equity as an amount in excess of the
Target Capital Requirement--is available to the Board. The textual
edits would state more generally at the outset that OCC may retain
additional Equity generated from revenue for capital expenditures
following a recommendation by Management and Board approval. Retention
of such additional Equity generated from revenue is already implicit in
the Capital Management Policy's provisions for setting the fee schedule
and determining whether to employ other tools to lower costs for
Clearing Members (e.g., a clearing fee refund or holiday), both of
which consider OCC's capital needs as a factor. The proposed changes
would also more expressly provide that option (2) is available as an
alternative to option (1). The principal difference between the two
options is that any excess capital retained under option (2) is
available as skin-in-the-game in the event of a default loss. In
addition, adding that such additional Equity would be ``generated from
revenue'' would also clarify the source of the funds OCC may retain as
additional Equity, which under OCC's Capital Management Policy would be
generated from fees or interest income--not from capital contributions
from OCC's stockholders that were part of the Capital Plan that
predated the Capital Management Policy.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Exchange Act Release No. 74452 (Mar. 6, 2015), 80 FR
13058 (Mar. 12, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-02), disapproved on remand by
Exchange Act Release No. 85121 (Feb. 13, 2019), 84 FR 5157 (Feb. 20,
2019) (SR-OCC-2015-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Capital Management Policy also currently provides that in
determining whether to retain additional Equity for capital
expenditures, the Board will consider the potential impact of the
``investment'' on OCC's operations. The proposed changes would amend
this language to instead provide that the Board will consider the
potential impact of the ``retention of additional Equity'' on OCC's
operations, consistent with the terminology that OCC proposes to use
throughout that paragraph of the Capital Management Policy. Use of the
term ``investment'' in reference to the retention of Equity may lead to
confusion when compared to OCC's Cash and Investment Management Policy,
which addresses guidelines for investing OCC's own cash and cash
deposited by Clearing Members, as discussed above. ``Investment'' in
that context is a separate concept from OCC's determination whether to
retain additional Equity to meet its capital needs, rather than, for
example, determining to use tools to decrease the cost of membership
through a fee decrease, fee holiday or fee refund.
    OCC is also proposing formatting edits to conform the Capital
Management Policy to OCC's current template format for its policies and
procedures. Specifically, the proposed changes would add a new
introductory paragraph at the outset of the Capital Management Policy
that addresses the policy's applicability and scope. This new
introductory paragraph would clarify that the policy applies to the
quantification, monitoring and management of OCC's Equity, as well as
identify the OCC departments that have roles in those processes,
including, primarily, Accounting and Finance, as well as Member
Services, Corporate Risk Management, Legal, and Financial Risk
Management business units. Finally, OCC would correct a typo by
deleting a duplicative word in one of the footnotes to the Capital
Management Policy, and such change would have no impact on the meaning
of the footnote.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Currently, the relevant footnote states that OCC management
makes a recommendation that is ``based calculated on an annual
basis'' pursuant to an underlying procedure. OCC proposes to remove
the extraneous word ``based'' from the footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Cash and Investment Management Policy Correction
    Finally, this proposed change would conform the text of the Cash
and Investment Management Policy to the intended meaning by inserting
``Clearing Fund'' before ``cash deposits'' when stating that
``[i]nterest earned on cash deposits held at a Federal Reserve Bank
shall accrue to the benefit of Clearing Members less a cash management
fee.'' The term ``Clearing Fund'' was inadvertently omitted from the
text of the policy, even though that was the intent of the change as
described in the associated regulatory filings described above.\33\
This change would thereby align the policy statement with OCC Rules
604(a) and 1002(c), which provide different treatment for interest
earned on margin cash and Clearing Fund cash deposited at a Federal
Reserve Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular,
OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,\34\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(1),\35\
17Ad-22(e)(2),\36\ and 17Ad-22(e)(3) \37\ thereunder for the reasons
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that OCC's rules must be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure
the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of OCC or for which it is responsible, and protect investors
and the public interest.\38\ OCC believes the Capital Management Policy
is reasonably designed to ensure that it has sufficient capital to
avoid disruptions of its clearance and settlement services in the event
OCC experiences a non-default loss--and the potential harm to investors
and the public interest that such a disruption could cause--by, among
other things, providing that the

Board or the CPC periodically reviews OCC's schedule of fees. Updating
the Capital Management Policy to align the cadence of those reviews to
the Board-determined cadence for regular Board and CPC meetings will
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Board and CPC's
oversight of OCC's fee schedule by reflecting the Board's determination
about the appropriate cadence of those reviews. In addition, the
proposed changes to the Capital Management Policy would clarify the
options available to OCC to retain additional Equity for capital
expenditures, either through the Target Capital Requirement or outside
of it, which would help to protect investors and the public interest by
ensuring that OCC has a clear framework for retaining additional Equity
for capital expenditures that promotes OCC's ability to provide prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement services. Similarly, amending the
Cash and Investment Management Policy to align the policy with OCC
Rules 604(a) and 1002(c) would help avoid any ambiguity concerning the
treatment of interest on Clearing Fund cash deposited at a Federal
Reserve Bank that OCC has committed to pass through to Clearing
Members, thereby ensuring that OCC has a clear and transparent
framework for ensuring the safeguarding of funds in its custody or
control. For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed changes promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is responsible, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Exchange Act requires that OCC
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear,
transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its
activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\39\ The proposed changes to
OCC's Cash and Investment Management Policy are designed to conform the
text of the policy with OCC's Rules,\40\ thereby improving the clarity
and transparency of OCC rules and helping to support OCC's legal basis
for its cash management and investment activities. Accordingly, OCC
believes that the changes to the Cash and Investment Management Policy
are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
    \40\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires, in part, that
OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.\42\ As noted above, the proposed changes to the Capital
Management Policy would align the cadence of the fee schedule review to
the CPC Charter, which provides for at least four regularly scheduled
meetings each year, but does not require those meetings be scheduled in
each fiscal quarter. For that reason, OCC previously amended its
Committee Charters to align the cadence of other periodic reviews to
occur at each ``regularly scheduled'' meeting, rather than
quarterly.\43\ The Commission concluded that such similar changes were
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) by, among other things, improving
the alignment of OCC's governance documents and thereby ``creat[ing]
stronger clarity and transparency.'' \44\ In addition, the proposed
change to conform OCC's Capital Management Policy to the latest Board-
approved format would add an Applicability and Scope section that would
identify the OCC business units with responsibilities under that
policy, thereby helping to delineate clear and direct lines of
responsibility with respect to the processes set forth therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (v).
    \43\ See supra note 30 and accompanying text.
    \44\ See Exchange Act Release No. 94988, 87 FR at 33541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) under the Exchange Act requires, in part,
that OCC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management
framework for comprehensively managing general business risk and
investment risk, among other risks, including risk management policies
designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks
that arise in or are borne by OCC, that are subject to review on a
specified periodic basis and approved by the Board annually.\45\ The
proposed changes to the Capital Management Policy and the Cash and
Investment Management Policy arose from annual reviews of policies
designed to address general business risk and investment risk,
respectively. OCC believes those changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(i) \46\ because by helping to maintain consistency across
OCC's rules and conforming those policies to the versions last approved
by the Board, the proposed changes support the maintenance of OCC's
risk management policies consistent with regulatory expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act \47\ requires that the
rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC
does not believe that the proposal would impose any burden on
competition because the proposal would implement changes to the Capital
Management Policy and the Cash and Investment Management Policy that
would apply equally to all Clearing Member users of OCC's services. The
proposed changes would not inhibit access to OCC's services in any way
and would not disadvantage or favor any particular user in relation to
another user. Accordingly, OCC does not believe that the proposed rule
changes would have any impact or impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) \48\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \49\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Regulation 40.6.

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

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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2023-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2023-006. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2023-006 and should
be submitted on or before September 5, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\51\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17445 Filed 8-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44770-44772]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 350 and 355

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1988-0002, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1998-0002; FRL-10012-00-OLEM]

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Regulations: Trade
Secrecy Claims and Emergency Planning Notification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is issuing a technical amendment to update the program websites for
trade secrecy regulations. This action amends the regulations to remove
the outdated substantiation form for trade secrecy claims from the Code
of Federal Regulations. The most current substantiation form is posted
on EPA program websites. The Agency is also including clarification
within a note in the regulations for state coordination of emergency
response.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1988-0002 and EPA-HQ-SFUND-1998-0002. All documents
in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are

available electronically through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Douglas, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Management, (MC: 5104A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Entities that may be affected by this action are those facilities
subject to sections 302, 303, 304, 311, 312, 313, 325, 327, 328, and
329 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
specifically, entities that file trade secrecy claims for chemical
identity and/or report emergency release notifications under the
aforementioned sections.

II. What does this correction do?

    This technical amendment is being issued to correct the program
website for the EPCRA Trade Secrecy Claims in 40 CFR 350.7, 350.16, and
350.27. EPA published an amendment in the Federal Register on November
14, 2003 (68 FR 64719) similarly correcting program websites. That
document also discusses the intent of removing the Trade Secret
substantiation form (OMB control number 2050-0078) and instructions
from 40 CFR 350.27 and directing the public to the program websites to
access the current version. Furthermore, the form requires Office of
Management and Budget approval every three years, but Sec.  350.27
still reflects a form that expired in 1990. The 2003 amendment
inadvertently omitted the instructions to update CFR part 350 to remove
the form. This technical amendment is being issued to amend the final
rule by revising Sec.  350.27 to direct the public to the current
version of the form and instructions on the program websites.
    This technical amendment is also being issued to revise a note in
40 CFR 355.41 to denote potential SERC specific formats in the
reporting requirements. On November 3, 2008, EPA published an amendment
in the Federal Register (73 FR 65452) updating 40 CFR part 355. This
action further clarifies a note at Sec.  355.41.

III. Rulemaking Procedures and Findings of Good Cause

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because such
notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary for the following two
reasons. First, this action is merely correcting the regulatory text to
reflect the removal of a form, where such removal was intended in a
previously published final rule that went through notice and public
comment procedures, but in which EPA inadvertently neglected to include
the necessary amendatory instruction to revise the regulatory text.
Second, this action is a minor, non-substantive technical correction
since it involves removal of a duplicative and outdated form. EPA finds
that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Effective Date

    Section 553(d)(3) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final
rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for
good cause'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final
rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d
620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551
F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule
effective immediately because it merely removes an old Trade Secret
substantiation form and directs the public to the program websites to
access the most current version. For this reason, the agency finds that
good cause exists under APA section 553(d)(3) to make this rule
effective immediately upon publication.

V. Do any of the Statutory and Executive Order reviews apply to this
action?

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. Additionally, this
action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Because this
action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or Sections 202
and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). In
addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action does not create new binding legal requirements
that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have
significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not
involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and
the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the
CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment
rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause
finding for this rule as discussed in Section III of the preamble,
including the basis for that finding.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 350

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

 40 CFR Part 355

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 7, 2020.
Peter Wright,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 350--TRADE SECRECY CLAIMS FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW INFORMATION: AND TRADE SECRET DISCLOSURES TO HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 350 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11042, 11043, and 11048 Pub. L. 99-499, 100
Stat. 1747.

0
2. Amend Sec.  350.7 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b),
(c) and (d)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  350.7   Substantiating claims of trade secrecy.

    (a) Claims of trade secrecy must be substantiated by providing a
specific answer including, where applicable, specific facts, to each of
the following questions with submission to which the trade secrecy
claim pertains. Submitters must answer these questions on the form
entitled ``Substantiation to Accompany Claims of Trade Secrecy.'' The
form and instructions are posted on the EPA program websites, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi.
* * * * *
    (b) The answers to the substantiation questions listed in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be submitted on the form entitled
``Substantiation to Accompany Claims of Trade Secrecy'' and included
with a submitter's trade secret claim. The form is posted on the EPA
program websites, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi,
    (c) An owner, operator, or senior official with management
responsibility shall sign the certification at the end of the form
entitled ``Substantiation to Accompany Claims of Trade Secrecy,'' which
is posted on the EPA program websites, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and
http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. The certification in both the sanitized and
unsanitized versions of the substantiation must bear an original
signature.
    (d) * * *
    (2) An owner, operator, or senior official with management
responsibility shall sign the certification stating that those portions
of the substantiation claimed as confidential would, if disclosed,
reveal the chemical identity being claimed as a trade secret, or would
reveal other confidential business or trade secret information. This
certification is combined on the substantiation form found on EPA
program websites, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi, with the certification described in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  350.16 to read as follows:

Sec.  350.16   Address to send trade secrecy claims and petitions
requesting disclosure.

    The address and location to send all claims of trade secrecy under
sections 303(d)(2) and (d)(3), 311, 312, and 313 of Title III and all
public petitions requesting disclosure of chemical identities claimed
as trade secret are posted on the following EPA program websites,
http://www.epa.gov/epcra and http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. Any subsequent
changes to the address and location will be announced in Federal
Register Notices as these changes occur. Also, the changes will be
posted on these websites. Submitters may also contact the EPCRA, RMP &
Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, https://www.epa.gov/epcra/forms/contact-us-about-emergency-planning-and-community-right-know-act-epcra to obtain this information.

0
4. Amend Sec.  350.27 by revising paragraph (a) and removing and
reserving paragraph (b), including the form and instructions to the
form, to read as follows:

Sec.  350.27  Substantiation form to accompany claims of trade secrecy,
instructions to substantiation form.

    (a) The substantiation form to accompany claims of trade secrecy
must be completed and submitted as required in Sec.  350.7(a). The form
and instructions are posted on the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) website, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and the
Toxics Release Inventory Program Division website, http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. Submitters may also contact the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nscep to obtain the form. The address to send all trade
secrecy claims is posted on the following EPA Program websites, http://www.epa.gov/epcra and http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. This information can
also be obtained by contacting the EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or https://www.epa.gov/epcra/forms/contact-us-about-emergency-planning-and-community-right-know-act-epcra.
* * * * *

PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION

0
5. The authority citation for Part 355 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 325, 327, 328, and 329 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, 11004, 11045, 11047, 11048, and 11049).

0
7. Amend the Note to Sec.  355.41 to read as follows:

Sec.  355.41  In what format should the information be submitted?

* * * * *

    Note 1 to Sec.  355.41: The SERC and LEPC may request a specific
format for this information.

[FR Doc. 2020-15139 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19176-19177]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0002-N-4]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2022-0002. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA
will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a
subsequent notice and include them in its information collection
submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Inquiry into Blocked Highway-Rail Grade Crossings throughout
the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0630.
    Abstract: In 2020, FRA created a dedicated website allowing the
public and law enforcement personnel to use web-based forms to
voluntarily submit information about blocked crossings to FRA.\1\ Under
the currently approved information collection request, users provide
information regarding the location, date, time, duration, and immediate
impacts of highway-rail grade crossings blocked by slow-moving or
stationary trains. FRA uses the data collected to gain a more complete
picture of where, when, for how long, and what impacts result from
reported blocked crossing incidents.\2\ Additionally, FRA uses the
information to respond to congressional inquiries so that congressional
staff can respond to their constituents. Furthermore, FRA uses the
information gathered to facilitate meetings, outreach, and other
solutions for stakeholders to reduce or eliminate blocked crossing
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Access to the web-based form used by the public is
unrestricted. Access to the web-based form used by law enforcement
personnel is restricted to law enforcement personnel with usernames
and passwords managed by FRA.
    \2\ The data collection is not designed to provide a
representative sample or create generalizable statistics.
Additionally, the data gathered from this collection is not suitable
for use in budgetary requests or regulatory proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon accessing these web-based forms, users are notified there are
no Federal laws or regulations that specifically address the length of
time a train may occupy a highway-rail grade crossing. Users are also
notified that information submitted will not be forwarded to a
railroad, State, or local agency, and will only being used for data
collection purposes to determine the locations, times, and impacts of
blocked crossings.
    On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of
2021 (Pub. L. 117-58) ``Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)'' was
enacted. In addition to mandating that FRA establish an online portal
and corresponding database to receive information regarding blocked
highway-rail grade crossings, section 22404 of BIL ``encourages each
complainant to report the blocked crossing to the relevant railroad.''
Therefore, in preparation for this new statutory mandate, FRA proposes
to modify the existing web-based forms by adding one question, ``have
you contacted the railroad?'' Otherwise, the rest of the questions on
the web-based forms will remain the same.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average time per response will be remain at 3 minutes
per response since the modification made under BIL requirement is de
minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are no Federal laws or regulations that
specifically address how long a train may occupy a crossing, whether
stationary or operating at slow speeds. Some States and local
municipalities have laws that vary in how long trains are permitted to
occupy crossings.
    There are potential safety concerns with crossings that are blocked
by trains. For instance, pedestrians may crawl under or through
stationary trains. Also, emergency response vehicles and first
responders may be delayed when responding to an incident or
transporting persons to a hospital. In addition, drivers may take more
risks, such as driving around lowered gates at

a crossing or attempting to beat a train through a crossing without
gates, in order to avoid a lengthy delay if they are aware that trains
routinely block a crossing for extended periods of time. There are also
potential economic impacts that affect businesses, such as stores or
restaurants not being accessible to a customer base for an extended
period of time. Finally, highway-rail grade crossings that are blocked
for extended periods of time may create societal nuisances, such as
roadway congestion, delayed mail service and deliveries, disrupted
school and work arrival and dismissal, or missed appointments.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Public individuals and law enforcement personnel.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.175.
    Respondent Universe: Public individuals and law enforcement
personnel.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average time
                    Form \4\                       Total annual    per response    Total annual     Total cost
                                                     responses       (minutes)     burden hours     equivalent
                                                             (A)             (B)     (C) = A * B  (D) = C * wage
                                                                                rate \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Public via the unrestricted form on the           15,500               3             775         $20,925
 FRA website....................................
Law Enforcement Personnel via the limited access             350               3              18             486
 form on the FRA website........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          15,850             N/A             793          21,411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 15,850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current inventory exhibits a total burden of 250 hours
while the total burden of this notice is 793 hours. The increase in
burden hours is due to an anticipated increase in the number of
responses.
    \5\ FRA used an hourly rate of $27 per hour for the value of the
public's time. FRA obtained this data from the Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 793 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $21,411.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-06944 Filed 3-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71016-71018]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28417]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70912; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2013-128]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Specify the Method of Billing When More Than One Pricing Tier Could Be
Applicable

November 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 15, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Fee Schedule'') to
specify the method of billing when more than one pricing tier could be
applicable. The Exchange proposes to implement the Fee Schedule change
immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to specify the method of billing when more
than one pricing tier could be applicable. The Exchange proposes to
implement the Fee Schedule change immediately.
    An ETP Holder may qualify for several different pricing ``Tiers''
based on its level of activity during a particular month. These Tiers
each have a corresponding fee or credit that applies to the ETP
Holder's transactions during the month. Generally, a qualifying ETP
Holder would be subject to a lower transaction fee or a higher
transaction credit, depending on the particular Tier. For example, an
ETP Holder that qualifies for Tape C Step Up Tier 2 receives an
incremental $0.0002 per share credit for executions that provide
liquidity to the Book in Tape C securities, which is in addition to the
ETP Holder's Tiered or Basic Rate credit(s) (e.g., $0.0002 in addition
to the $0.0030 credit under Tier 1).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To qualify for the Tape C Step Up Tier 2 an ETP Holder must
directly execute providing average daily volume (``ADV'') in Tape C
securities (``Tape C Adding ADV'') during the billing month that is
at least 2 million shares greater than the ETP Holder's Tape C
Adding ADV during the second quarter of 2012 (``Q2 2012''), subject
to the ETP Holder's combined providing ADV in Tape A, Tape B, and
Tape C Securities during the billing month as a percentage of
consolidated ADV (``CADV'') being no less than during Q2 2012.
     To qualify for Tier 1, an ETP Holder must (1) provide liquidity
an ADV per month of 0.70% or more of CADV or (2) (a) provide
liquidity an ADV per month of 0.15% or more of CADV and (b) be
affiliated with an Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder or OTP
Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted executions (including
all account types) in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options
(excluding mini options) of at least 100,000 contracts, of which at
least 25,000 contracts must be for the account of a market maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the lower fee or higher credit that applies, certain of the
pricing Tiers specify that a qualifying ETP Holder is not able to
qualify to receive certain other specific Tier pricing. Continuing with
the example above, Tape C Step Up Tier 2 provides that Investor Tier 1
and Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders, among others, cannot qualify for Tape
C Step Up Tier 2.\5\ Without these exclusions, an ETP Holder could
receive a higher credit than intended (e.g., $0.0034 under Investor
Tier 1 plus $0.0002 under Tape C Step Up Tier 2 would be a total credit
of $0.0036) or lower fees compared to the other fees and credits in the
Fee Schedule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To qualify for Investor Tier 1, an ETP Holder must (1)
provide liquidity of 0.60% or more of CADV per month, (2) maintain a
ratio of cancelled orders to total orders of less than 30%,
excluding Immediate-or-Cancel orders, and (3) maintain a ratio of
executed liquidity adding volume-to-total volume of greater than
80%.
     To qualify for the Cross Asset Tier, an ETP Holder must (1)
provide liquidity of 0.40% or more of the CADV per month, and (2) be
affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of
electronic posted Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE
Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.95% of total
Customer equity and exchange-traded fund option ADV, as reported by
The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67461 (July 18,
2012), 77 FR 43408, 43409 (July 24, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-69) in
which the Exchange noted its belief that prohibiting certain ETP
Holders from qualifying for the Tape C Step Up Tier 2 was
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
ETP Holders that qualify for certain other Tiers would already
receive a higher credit for such executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange determines qualifications for the Tiers after the
billing month ends. If an ETP Holder or Market Maker qualifies for more
than one Tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange applies the most
favorable rate available under such Tiers. For example, if an ETP
Holder or Market Maker qualifies for both the Cross-Asset Tier and the
Tape C Step Up Tier 2, the Exchange will apply the single most
favorable tier to the ETP Holder or Market Maker. The Exchange has
consistently applied pricing in this manner and now proposes to codify
this practice by adding text to the Tiers in the Fee Schedule that
could be effected.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because it specifies the Exchange's current method of billing when more
than one pricing Tier could be applicable to an ETP Holder. This method
of billing is reasonable because it results in the application of the
most beneficial fees and credits for which an ETP Holder qualifies when
an ETP Holder qualifies for more than one pricing Tier. The proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies
to all ETP Holders equally. The proposed change is also equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it eliminates the potential for an
ETP Holder that qualifies for more than one pricing Tier to receive
less favorable pricing than other ETP Holders that qualify for one of
the same Tiers.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the proposed change describes the
Exchange's existing method of applying fees and credits for ETP Holders
that qualify for the various Tiers within the Fee Schedule. This
billing method is designed to result in the application of the most
beneficial fees and credits for which an ETP Holder qualifies if such
ETP Holder qualifies for more than one pricing Tier. This billing
method is also designed to increase competition on the Exchange by
eliminating a potential disincentive for ETP Holders to submit orders
on the Exchange--i.e., if less beneficial fees and credits could apply
as a result of qualifying for multiple Tiers. Finally, the Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee or
credit levels at a particular venue to be unattractive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. The billing method described herein is based on objective
standards that are applicable to all ETP Holders and reflects the need
for the Exchange to offer significant financial incentives to attract
order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change reflects this competitive environment and is therefore
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-128 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-NYSEARCA-2013-128. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-NYSEARCA-2013-128 and should
be submitted on or before December 18, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28417 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146

FROM:	Bob Lucas, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	August 17, 2007

SUBJECT:	Miscellaneous Process Vents:  Control Options and Impact
Estimates

I.	Purpose

This memorandum documents the methodology used to identify the control
options and estimate the costs and environmental impacts for
miscellaneous process vents control options.

II.	Background

Section 112 (f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) directs the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess source categories
regulated under Section 112(d) of the CAA and determine whether any
human health or environmental risks remain from the continued emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) following implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  The CAA further states
that if the MACT standards do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risk to
the most exposed individual to less than one in one million, EPA must
set additional standards to protect human health and the environment, in
accordance with the interpretation set forth in the Benzene NESHAP.
Additionally, the EPA is required to review these technology-based
standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes and control technologies)” no
less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6).  The
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC) was promulgated over 8 years
ago and is now being reviewed.

III.	Summary of Existing Refinery MACT 1 Miscellaneous Process Vents
Control Requirements

Refinery MACT 1 requires Group 1 miscellaneous process vents to control
emissions of organic HAP.  Refinery MACT 1 defines miscellaneous process
vents as:

gas streams containing greater than 20 parts per million by volume
organic HAP that is continuously or periodically discharged during
normal operation of a petroleum refining process unit. Miscellaneous
process vents include gas streams that are discharged directly to the
atmosphere, gas streams that are routed to a control device prior to
discharge to the atmosphere, or gas streams that are diverted through a
product recovery device prior to control or discharge to the atmosphere.
Miscellaneous process vents include vent streams from: caustic wash
accumulators, distillation tower condensers/accumulators, flash/knockout
drums, reactor vessels, scrubber overheads, stripper overheads, vacuum
(steam) ejectors, wash tower overheads, water wash accumulators,
blowdown condensers/accumulators, and delayed coker vents. Miscellaneous
process vents do not include: (1) Gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas
system; (2) Relief valve discharges; (3) Leaks from equipment regulated
under §63.648; (4) Episodic or nonroutine releases such as those
associated with startup, shutdown, malfunction, maintenance,
depressuring, and catalyst transfer operations; (5) In situ sampling
systems (onstream analyzers); (6) Catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regeneration vents; (7) Catalytic reformer regeneration vents; (8)
Sulfur plant vents; (9) Vents from control devices such as scrubbers,
boilers, incinerators, and electrostatic precipitators applied to
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regeneration vents, catalytic reformer
regeneration vents, and sulfur plant vents; (10) Vents from any
stripping operations applied to comply with the wastewater provisions of
this subpart, subpart G of this part, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF;
(11) Coking unit vents associated with coke drum depressuring at or
below a coke drum outlet pressure of 15 pounds per square inch gauge,
deheading, draining, or decoking (coke cutting) or pressure testing
after decoking; (12) Vents from storage vessels; (13) Emissions from
wastewater collection and conveyance systems including, but not limited
to, wastewater drains, sewer vents, and sump drains; and (14) Hydrogen
production plant vents through which carbon dioxide is removed from
process streams or through which steam condensate produced or treated
within the hydrogen plant is degassed or deaerated.

Refinery MACT 1 defines Group 1 miscellaneous process vents as:

miscellaneous process vents for which the total organic HAP
concentration is greater than or equal to 20 parts per million by
volume, and the total volatile organic compound emissions are greater
than or equal to 33 kilograms per day for existing sources and 6.8
kilograms per day for new sources at the outlet of the final recovery
device (if any) and prior to any control device and prior to discharge
to the atmosphere.

Refinery MACT 1 requires Group 1 miscellaneous process vents to control
emissions of organic HAP by using a flare, or to reduce emissions of
organic HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per
million by volume, on a dry basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen through
the use of a control device, whichever is less stringent.

IV.	Identification of Control Options

Two options were identified for protecting human health and the
environment through the control of miscellaneous process vents.  The
options involve lower cut-offs for total organic HAP.

Option 1:  set a limit of 25 lb/day of organic HAP for each
miscellaneous process vent.

Option 2:  set a limit of 15 lb/day of organic HAP for each
miscellaneous process vent.

Based on the typical stream compositions obtained during the development
of Refinery MACT 1 (Lucas, 2007), the gas phase composition for most
refinery process streams typically contains only about 10 percent HAP.
There are, however, some liquid process streams that contain 50 percent
or more HAP.  Therefore, most gaseous miscellaneous process vent streams
are expected to exceed the 33 kg/day (72 lb/day) total VOC well before
they exceed the total organic HAP emission thresholds evaluated in these
options.   That is, these control options would only impact a very small
percentage of Group 2 miscellaneous process vents; and any vents that
are impacted would have to have significant (50 to 100 percent) HAP
content.  For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that these
selected miscellaneous process vents are 100 percent HAP, so that the
VOC reduction estimate is the same as the organic HAP emission
reductions.

To evaluate the two control options, two “model vents” were
developed.  The first model vent was assumed to have organic HAP
emission rate of 40 lb/day (to represent vents between the 25 lb/day
threshold in Option 1 and the 72 lb/day threshold in the existing
Refinery MACT 1 rule).  The second model vent was assumed to have
organic HAP emission rate of 20 lb/day (to represent vents between the
25 and 15 lb/day thresholds in Options 1 and 2).

V.	Impact Estimates

Control Costs

All refineries will have to evaluate their Group 2 miscellaneous process
vents to determine the number of miscellaneous process vents that may
HAP emissions significant enough to potentially trigger the total
organic HAP threshold.  If needed, vent stream samples would need to be
collected to augment or confirm engineering calculations.  The analysis
would need to be summarized and reported to demonstrate compliance with
the rule requirements or notify the need to control the vent stream.  We
assumed that 150 refineries would have at least one Group 2
miscellaneous process vent and need to undertake these activities.  On
average, we estimated that 8 technical hours would be needed per
refinery.  For each technical hour, we assumed 0.05 management hours and
0.1 administrative hours were also required.  Table 1 provides the
basis of the loaded labor rates used for this analysis.  Eight technical
hours, therefore, represents a cost of $1,010, fully burdened.

We also assumed each refinery would take a grab gas sample for analysis
to confirm the vent stream HAP composition on one vent stream.  The
total cost of canister rental and a full-speciation panel chemical
analysis at the contract testing laboratory the chemical analysis was
estimated to be $435.  Therefore, we estimate that 150 refineries would
each incur an initial cost of $1,445 to determine whether or not they
have a miscellaneous process vent that is subject to control under the
new threshold options, resulting in a nationwide one-time cost of
approximately $217,000.  Averaging these costs over 5 years results in a
nationwide annual cost of $43,400/yr

Refineries that have Group 2 miscellaneous process vents exceeding the
control option thresholds would have to either send the gases to the
fuel system or connect the vent gases to a flare or control device
achieving 98 percent control efficiency.  As discussed previously, only
a small fraction of miscellaneous process vents would are expected to
have HAP concentrations significant enough to be affected by these
control options.  Nonetheless, capital control costs for those vents
impacted under Options 1 or 2 were estimated using the costs reported in
the vent stream cost analysis for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (EPA, 1992).  We assumed that process
vent emissions could be controlled by an existing flare or process
heater so the only capital costs are those of piping from the vent to
the flare (or other control device) and the addition of a knock-out drum
to eliminate mist entrainment.  The SOCMI analysis assumed 300 feet of
piping with a diameter of 1 inch, resulting in a purchased equipment
cost of $381 for piping.  The knock-out drum in the SOCMI analysis was
18 inches in height, 6 inches in diameter, and ¼ inches thick, and had
a purchased equipment cost of $193.  These cost estimates were developed
in 1992, so the costs were escalated to 2006 dollars using the average
CEPCI in 1992 of 358.2 and the average CEPCI in 2006 of 499.6.
Therefore, the purchased equipment cost of controlling a single process
vent was estimated to be $800 [($381+$193)×499.6/358.2].

Table 1.  Summary of 2006 Labor Rates

Labor Class	(A)

Labor Rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics	(B)

Fringe Benefit Loading rate from BLS	(C)

Overhead and profit rate from MWC ICR	(D)

Loaded wage rate

(A x B x C)

1. Professional specialty and Technical	48.27	1.43	1.67	115.27

2. Executive, administrative and managerial	59.15	1.40	1.67	138.29

3. Administrative support, including clerical	17.46	1.41	1.67	41.11

4. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair	24.28	1.40	1.67	56.77

5. Plant and System Operators, All	20.64	1.40	1.67	48.26

May 2006 Labor rates (accessed in Jun 2007).

http://stats.bls.gov/home.htm

http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm	total cost/tech hr*	126.30

	*Calculated as: D1+ 0.05D2 + 0.1D3

Where D1, D2, and D3 are cell references above.

This $800 represents only the purchased equipment costs; installed costs
are typically estimated as approximately 2 times the purchased equipment
costs.  However, for these low purchased equipment costs, this approach
is expected to seriously understate the actual installation costs.
Before the equipment can be purchased, an engineer would need to
evaluate the control options (identify the nearest flare header or
process heaters, evaluate the technical feasibility of using each
potential tie-in location, etc.), select the best option, plan the
piping and tie-in locations, and develop the purchase specifications.
We assumed this would require 40 technical hours (plus associated
management and administrative hours).  Once the equipment was purchased,
we estimated 20 installation/maintenance/repair labor hours would be
needed to install the piping and knock-out drum.  Therefore, the total
installed cost of the controls was estimated to be $7,000 ($800 +
40×$126.3 + 20×$56.77).  These costs were considered capital
investments and were annualized over 10 years assuming a 7 percent
interest rate, resulting in an annualized cost of capital of $990 for
each vent that needed additional control.  On-going costs were assumed
to be minimal.  One operating hour was assumed per week to inspect the
line for pluggage and/or leaks; we assumed that one “repair”
requiring 8 hours of maintenance labor per year, resulting in operating
and maintenance costs of approximately $3,830 per year per controlled
vent.

Because this analysis assumed that it is technically feasible to tie-in
to an existing control, the costs estimated here are expected to
represent the lowest plausible cost.  Actual control costs may
significantly exceed these costs.

Emission Reductions

The controls must achieve 98 percent emissions reduction.  For
miscellaneous process vents represented by the first model vent, a 98
percent reduction equates to total HAP emissions reduction of 39.2
lb/day.   For miscellaneous process vents represented by second model
vent, a 98 percent equates to total HAP emissions reduction of 19.6
lb/day.  No data were available on the number of Group 2 miscellaneous
process vents that are present at a typical refinery.   As in
development of the cost estimates, we assumed that there are 150
refineries that contain at least one Group 2 miscellaneous process vent.
 However, only a small fraction of these vents will contain HAP in
concentrations high enough to trigger controls under Options 1 or 2.

Of the 150 Group 2 miscellaneous process vents that needed to be
specifically evaluated, we assumed that 4 percent (i.e., 6 vents) would
exceed the 25 lb/day (i.e., represented by Model Vent 1) and an
additional 4 percent (6 vents) would exceed the 15 lb/day threshold.
Under Option 1, the 6 affected miscellaneous process vents would each
reduce emissions by 39.2 lb/day on average.  Assuming 365 days per year
operation, the annual emission reductions would be 42.9 tons per year
(tpy) [(39.2 lb/day/vent × 6 vents × 365 days/yr) / 2000 lbs/ton].
Under Option 2, you would get all of the emission reductions under
Option 1 plus an additional 21.5 tpy.  These emission reductions are
likely to over estimate the total annual emission reductions because
these miscellaneous process vents do not always operate continuously.

Nationwide Impacts

The nationwide impact estimates for miscellaneous process vents are
shown in Table 2.  This analysis is based on assuming 6 vents require
controls under Option 1 and an additional 6 vents require controls under
Option 2.  As discussed previously, the cost estimates assume that the
vents can be tied to a nearby existing control device or flare header.
Additionally, the emission estimates are likely overstated because they
assume continuous vent operation and they assume that the emissions are
100 percent HAP.  As such, the cost-effectiveness values presented in
Table 2 likely biased low.  The actual cost per ton of HAP removed may
be significantly higher if an additional control device is needed and/or
the vent stream operates only intermittently or has less than 100
percent HAP.

Table 2.  Nationwide Impacts of Refinery Miscellaneous Process Vent
Control Options

Control Option

	Total Capital Investment  ($)	Average Initial Evaluation Costs

($/yr)	Annual Operating Costs of Controls ($/yr)	Total Annualized Costs
($/yr)	HAP Emission Reduction from Baseline

(tpy)	Cost-Effectiveness

($/ton HAP)

1.  >25 lb/day HAP	42,000	216,800	23,000	245,700	42.9	5,700

2.  >15 lb/day HAP	84,000	216,800	46,000	274,700	64.4	4,300

VI.	References

Lucas, B.  2007.  Memorandum from B. Lucas, EPA/SPPD, to Project Docket
File (EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146).  Average Refinery Stream
Composition.  August 6, 2007.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).   1992.  Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry--Background Information for Proposed Standards;
Volume 1B:  Control Technologies.  Document Number EPA-453/D-92-016b.
November.

Technical Memorandum – Miscellaneous Process Vents:  Control Options
and Impact Estimates

August 17, 2007

Page   PAGE  6

Technical Memorandum


MEMORANDUM

TO:  Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

FROM:  Keith Barnett, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

DATE:  April 21, 2008

SUBJECT:  March 19, 2009  Meeting between US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) at the EPA Offices in Washington D.C.

Introduction and Objectives

Representatives from Portland Cement Association requested a meeting with Elizabeth Craig, Acting Administrator for Air to dicsuss the proposed amendments for the Portland Cement NESHAP.  .

Meeting Participants

A partial list of persons attending the meeting and those participating by telephone and their affiliation is included as Attachment 1.

Meeting Summary

The meeting consisted of the cement representative presentation which is attached.  In addition, materials were received prior to the meeting which are also attached.

ATTACHMENT 1 – MEETING ATTENDEES

EPA – PCA

March 19, 2009

Attendees				Affiliation

Steve Silverman			EPA

Keith Barnett				EPA, by phone

Steve Fruh				EPA, by phone

Elineth Torres				EPA, by phone

Andy O’Hare				Portland Cement Association (PCA)

David Novello				Novello Law

Other individual cement company representatives.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2