[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33298-33299]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-439-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

June 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 20, 2010 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056, filed in
the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205,
157.208 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) and Columbia's authorization in Docket No. CP83-76-000,
for authorization to construct and abandon certain natural gas
facilities located in Marshall County, West Virginia and Greene and
Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Fredic
J. George, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box
1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25314-1273 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the

Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing''
link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14024 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 76272-76273]
[DOCID:fr23de05-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-37-000]

Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC, Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing, LLC, Barclays Bank PLC; Notice of Filing

December 15, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 8, 2005, Duke Energy Marketing America
LLC, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC and Barclays Bank PLC
(collectively, Applicants) submitted an application pursuant to section
203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of
jurisdictional facilities in which DEMA and DETM propose to transfer to
Barclays various wholesale electric power sales contracts, which
transfer is part of an agreement to transfer a significant portion of
the trading books of DEMA, DETM and certain of their affiliates.
Applicants have requested privileged treatment for commercially
sensitive information contained in the Application.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 29, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7751 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42409-42411]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0018; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-060-AD;
Amendment 39-17483; AD 2013-12-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. This AD requires determining if a certain serial-numbered
bevel gear is installed in the tailrotor intermediate gear box (IGB).
If such a bevel gear is installed in the IGB, this AD requires
recording the bevel gear's reduced life limit in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual and on the component
history card or equivalent IGB record. If the bevel gear's life limit
has been reached or exceeded, this AD requires, before further flight,
replacing the bevel gear with an airworthy bevel gear. This AD is
prompted by the discovery that the tooth foot fillets in certain bevel
gears fall below the minimum dimensions required in the design
documents to ensure safe functioning of the bevel gear until it reaches
its approved life limit. This AD's actions are intended to prevent
failure of a bevel gear before it reaches its currently approved life
limit, failure of the IGB, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective August 20, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of August 20,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2010-0096 on May 25, 2010, to
correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. EASA advised that during a recent review of the production
documents for the bevel gears of the IGB, it was discovered that
certain production batch numbers have tooth foot fillets below the
required minimum values that would ensure the approved life limits for
this part.
    On January 18, 2013, at 78 FR 4090, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model MBB-
BK 117 C-2 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require determining if a
certain serial-numbered bevel gear was installed in the IGB. If such a
bevel gear was installed in the IGB, the NPRM proposed to require
recording the bevel gear's reduced life limit in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual and on the component
history card or equivalent IGB record. If the bevel gear's life limit
was reached or exceeded, the NPRM proposed to require, before further
flight, replacing the bevel gear with an airworthy bevel gear. The
proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a bevel gear
before it reached its currently approved life limit, failure of the
IGB, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 4090, January
18, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD does not require sending a copy of the form in Eurocopter's
Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C-2-04A-005, Revision 2, dated
April 28, 2010 (ASB), to the manufacturer. This AD does not require
sending the IGB to an overhaul facility. Also, this AD does not specify
a single ferry flight not to exceed 20 hours time-in-service to a
maintenance facility if the bevel gear has exceeded the reduced life
limit.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter's ASB specifies determining whether certain serial-
numbered bevel gears are installed in the IGB. The ASB specifies
recording the reduced life limit for each affected bevel gear on the
log card of the IGB and on the list of life-limited parts. If a bevel
gear has one of the serial numbers listed in Table 1 of the ASB, the
ASB specifies filling out a reply form and copying and sending it to
Eurocopter. The ASB also specifies sending the IGB to a certified
overhaul facility for replacing the bevel gear if it has reached or
exceeded its life limit. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and
issued AD No. 2010-0096, dated May 25, 2010, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 107 helicopters of U.S. registry
and that the labor rate averages $85 per work-hour. We also estimate
that it takes about a half hour to determine whether the IGB is
affected and to enter the reduced life limit on the component history
card or the equivalent record and to revise the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual. Based on these figures,
we estimate that the cost per helicopter totals about $43, about $4,601
for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD
docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-12-05 Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Amendment 39-
17483; Docket No. FAA-2013-0018; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-060-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a bevel
gear, part number (P/N) 4639 310 065, installed in the tail rotor
intermediate gear box (IGB), P/N 4639 002 007, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a bevel gear,
failure of the tail rotor IGB, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 20, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 30 days, do the following:
    (1) Determine if a bevel gear with a serial number (S/N) listed
in Table 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-04A-
005, Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010 (ASB), is installed in the
IGB.
    (i) If a bevel gear listed in Table 1 of the ASB is installed in
the IGB, record the reduced life limit of the bevel gear onto the
component history card or equivalent record of the IGB.
    (ii) If the bevel gear life limit has been reached or is
exceeded, before further flight, replace the bevel gear with an
airworthy bevel gear.
    (2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual by reducing the retirement life for each IGB
bevel gear, P/N 4639 310 065, that has a S/N listed in Table 1 of
the ASB to the life limit corresponding to that S/N.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0096, dated May 25, 2010. You may view the
EASA AD at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0018.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor
Gearbox.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-04A-005,
Revision 2, dated April 28, 2010.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 13, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-14848 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 60712-60713]
[DOCID:fr25oc07-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0016]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (Formerly
Hazardous Materials Permit)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. This information collection concerns the requirement that
companies holding permits for transporting certain hazardous materials
to develop a communications plan that allows for the periodic tracking
of the shipment. A record of the communications may be kept by either
the driver (e.g., recorded in the log book) or the company that
contains the time of the call and location of the shipment. These
records must be kept, either physically or electronically, for at least
six months at the company's principal place of business or readily
available to employees at the company's principal place of business. On
July 20, 2007, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice allowing for a
60-day

comment period on the ICR. One comment was received.

DATES: Please send your comments by November 26, 2007. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0016.
You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT/FMCSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James O. Simmons, Hazardous
Materials Division, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,

DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours
are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (formerly Hazardous
Materials Permit).
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0030.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Motor Carriers; Drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,515 motor carriers of property
(Forms MCS-150B).
    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes. The communication between
motor carriers and their drivers must take place at least two times per
day and it is estimated that it will take 5 minutes to maintain a daily
communication record for each driver.
    Expiration Date: October 31, 2007.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion. The changes will occur at the
time of renewal, update or change of information.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 130,780 hours. 52 annual hours per
carrier [5 minutes/60 minutes per trip x 1,570,391 estimated annual
trips for carriers/2,515 carriers = 52 hours]. 130,780 total annual
burden hours [52 annual hours per carrier x 2,515 carriers = 130,780
hours].
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
responsible for implementing regulations to issue safety permits for
transporting certain hazardous materials in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq. The HM Safety Permit regulations (49 CFR part 385) require
carriers to complete a ``Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report
and HM Safety Permit Application''--form number MCS-150B. The HM Safety
Permit regulations also require carriers to have a security program. As
part of the HM Safety Permit regulations, carriers are required to
develop and maintain route plans so that law enforcement officials can
verify the correct location of the HM shipment. FMCSA requires
companies holding permits to develop a communications plan that allows
for the periodic tracking of the shipment. This information collection
covers the records of the communications that contain the time of the
call and location of the shipment. The records may be kept by either
the driver (e.g., recorded in the log book) or the company. These
records must be kept, either physically or electronically, for at least
six months at the company's principal place of business or readily
available to employees at the company's principal place of business.
    On July 20, 2007, (72 FR 39878) FMCSA published a Federal Register
notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the proposed revision of
this ICR. One comment was received from a motor carrier that asked the
Agency to consider exempting drivers of trucks equipped with satellite
tracking and monitoring systems from the requirement to call in. The
commenter did not discuss the revised burden hours and costs aspects of
the Hazardous Materials Safety Permits information collection.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-20975 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42751-42754]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83872; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amend Rule 6.21., Give Up
of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder

August 17, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 7, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the give up of a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder by a Trading Permit Holder on exchange
transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.21, which governs the give up
of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``Clearing TPH'') by a Trading
Permit Holder (``TPH'') on Exchange transactions.
Background
    By way of background, Cboe Options Rule 6.21 provides that when a
TPH executes a transaction on the Exchange, it must give up the name of
the CTPH (the ``Give Up'') through which the transaction will be
cleared. Rule 6.21 also provides that a TPH may only give up a
``Designated Give Up'' or its ``Guarantor.'' This limitation is
enforced by the Exchange's trading systems.
    A ``Designated Give Up'' is currently defined as any CTPH that a
TPH (other than a Market-Maker \3\) identifies to the Exchange, in
writing, as a CTPH that the TPH would like to have the ability to give
up. To designate a ``Designated Give Up'' a TPH must submit written

notification, in a form and manner determined by the Exchange, to the
Membership Services Department (``MSD''). Specifically, the Exchange
uses a standardized form (``Notification Form'') that a TPH needs to
complete and submit to MSD. The Exchange notes that a TPH may currently
designate any CTPH as a Designated Give Up. Additionally, there is no
minimum or maximum number of Designated Give Ups that a TPH must
identify. Rule 6.21 also requires that the Exchange notify a CTPH, in
writing and as soon as practicable, of each TPH that has identified it
as a Designated Give Up. The Exchange however, will not accept any
instructions from a CTPH to prohibit a TPH from designating the CTPH as
a Designated Give Up. Additionally, there is no subjective evaluation
of a TPH's list of proposed Designated Give Ups by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market-Maker''
shall refer to Trading Permit Holders acting in the capacity of a
Market-Maker and shall include all Exchange Market-Maker capacities
(e.g., Designated Primary Market-Makers and Lead Market-Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.21 also defines ``Guarantor''. For purposes of Rule 6.21, a
``Guarantor'' refers to a CTPH that has issued a Letter of Guarantee or
Letter of Authorization for the executing TPH under the Exchange Rules
that is in effect at the time of the execution of the applicable
trade.\4\ An executing TPH may give up its Guarantor without having to
first designate it to the Exchange as a ``Designated Give Up.'' \5\
Additionally, the Exchange notes that a Market-Maker is only enabled to
give up the Guarantor of the Market-Maker pursuant to Cboe Options Rule
8.5 and also does not need to identify any Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Options Rule 3.28, Cboe Options Rule 6.72, and Cboe
Options Rule 8.5.
    \5\ The Exchange already knows each TPH's Guarantor and as such,
no further designation or identification is required of TPHs to
enable their respective Guarantors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, several bank-affiliated clearing firm members of the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'')
expressed concerns related to the process by which executing brokers on
U.S. options exchanges (the ``Exchanges'') are allowed to designate or
`give up' a clearing firm for purposes of clearing particular
transactions. The SIFMA member clearing firms indicated that the
Federal Reserve has recently identified the current give-up process as
a significant source of risk for clearing firms. SIFMA member clearing
firms subsequently requested that the Exchanges alleviate this risk by
amending Exchange rules governing the give up process.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.21 to provide that TPHs will
no longer be able to designate any CTPH for which they desire to give
up. Rather, the Exchange proposes to provide that TPHs must first have
received written authorization from a CTPH before it may give up that
CTPH.
    In connection with this proposed change, the Exchange first
proposes to eliminate the term ``Designated Give Up'' throughout Rule
6.21 and replace it with the term ``Authorized Give Up'' and make other
corresponding changes. The Exchange also proposes to amend subparagraph
(b)(i) to explicitly define ``Authorized Give Up''. For purposes of
Rule 6.21, an Authorized Give Up of a TPH will refer to a CTPH which
has authorized that TPH to have the ability to give up that CTPH and
which has been processed by the Exchange.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend subparagraph (b)(iii) of Rule
6.21, which governs the identification of Authorized Give Ups. Going
forward, CTPHs must identify, in a form and manner prescribed by the
Exchange, any TPH which will be authorized to give up that CTPH (other
than a Market-Maker or TPH for which it is the Guarantor).\6\ To
facilitate this identification, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
current Notification Form and replace it with a new standardized
authorization form titled ``Cboe Options Exchange Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Give Up Authorization Form'' (``Authorization Form''),
which both the TPH and CTPH would need to complete and subsequently
submit to the Exchange. A copy of the proposed Authorization Form is
attached in Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As a Guarantor of a TPH has already provided a Letter of
Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for that TPH's trading
activities on the Exchange, no further authorization is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend subparagraph (b)(iv) of Rule
6.21. Currently Rule 6.21(b)(iv) provides that any TPH (other than a
Market-Maker) may designate any CTPH as a Designated Give Up. In light
of the proposed change to require authorization from CTPHs, the
Exchange proposes to revise Rule 6.21(b)(iv) accordingly to make clear
that any CTPH may authorize any TPH to use it as an Authorized Give Up.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the language in subparagraph
(b)(iv) that provides that the Exchange will not accept instructions
with respect to its designation as a Designated Give Up. Particularly,
Rule 6.21(b)(iv) provides that the Exchange will not accept any
instructions, or give effect to any previous instructions, from a CTPH
not to permit a TPH to designate the CTPH as a Designated Give Up. The
proposal to require authorization from a CTPH prior to being able to
give them up renders this provision obsolete and unnecessary. The
Exchange accordingly proposes to eliminate this language.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend subparagraph (b)(vi) of Rule
6.21 to make clear that a Guarantor for a TPH will be enabled to be
given up for that TPH without any further action by the CTPH as well as
the TPH.
    The Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (b)(vii), which
currently governs the removal of Designated Give Ups. Currently, if a
TPH (other than a Market-Maker) no longer wants the ability to give up
a particular Designated Give Up, the TPH must notify the Exchange, in a
form and manner prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
update this provision in light of the proposed requirement to receive
authorization from a CTPH. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to
provide that if a CTPH no longer wants a particular TPH (for which it
is not the Guarantor) \7\ to have the ability to give them up as an
Authorized Give Up, the CTPH must notify the Exchange, in a form and
manner prescribed by the Exchange. The Exchange anticipates utilizing
the same Authorization Form noted above to facilitate revocations of
give up authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As discussed above, all TPHs will be enabled to give up
their respective Guarantor without further action from the CTPH or
TPH. This does not preclude a Guarantor from revoking a Letter of
Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for any TPH pursuant to Cboe
Options Rules 3.28. 6.72, and 8.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its trading system is currently configured
to only accept orders from a TPH which identify a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor for that TPH and will reject any order entered by a TPH which
designates a Give Up that is not at the time a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor of the TPH. The Exchange notes that its systems will continue
to be configured to enforce its Give-Up rule. Particularly, going
forward, the Exchange's trading system will reject any order entered by
a TPH which designates a Give Up that is not an Authorized Give Up or
Guarantor for that TPH.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed changes to Rule 6.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will also continue to provide certain notices to TPHs.
Currently, pursuant to subparagraph (d) of Rule 6.21, the Exchange
provides notice to a TPH in writing when an identified Designated Give
Up becomes ``effective'' (i.e., when a CTPH that has been identified by
the TPH as a Designated Give Up has been enabled by the Exchange's
trading systems to be

given up).\9\ Under the proposed rule, the Exchange will continue to
provide notice to a TPH in writing when an Authorized Give Up becomes
``effective''. The Exchange also proposes to notify a TPH, in writing
and as soon as practicable, of each CTPH that has revoked its
authorization for that TPH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Currently, a Guarantor for a TPH is always enabled to be
given up for a TPH without any action by the TPH. As previously
discussed, under the proposed rule a TPH's Guarantor will continue
to be enabled for that TPH without further action from the Guarantor
or the TPH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly notes that other than updating references from
``Designated Give Up'' to ``Authorized Give Up'', it is not changing
its rules relating to acceptance and rejection of a trade by a Give
Up.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similarly, no changes are being proposed to the Give Up
Change Form and Give Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Trading
Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will help limit
clearing firm risk and thereby enable clearing firms to continue to
provide the listed options market with vital clearing services, which
helps protect investors and the public interest consistent with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in an Exchange Notice, to be published no later
than thirty (30) days following Commission approval. The implementation
date will be no later than sixty (60) days following Commission
approval. The Exchange notes this additional time gives CTPHs time to
provide authorization of all TPHs that they would like to authorize as
having the ability to give the CTPH up and gives the Exchange time to
process those lists and configure its system accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\11\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, as discussed above, several bank-affiliated clearing
firm members have recently expressed concerns relating to the current
give up process which permits TPHs to identify any CTPH as a Designated
Give Up for purposes of clearing particular transactions. Also as noted
above, the CTPHs have relayed that the Federal Reserve has recently
identified the current give-up process (i.e., a process that lacks
authorization) as a significant source of risk for clearing firms. The
Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 6.21 help alleviate this
risk by requiring TPHs to receive affirmative authorization from CTPHs
in order to be able to use that CTPH for purposes of clearing
transactions. The Exchange believes this authorization provides proper
safeguards and protections for CTPHs as it alleviates CTPHs of certain
risks that can be associated with any TPH giving them up and of which
they have no control. The Exchange also believes its proposed
Authorization Form allows the Exchange to receive in a uniform fashion,
written and transparent authorization from CTPHs, which ensures
seamless administration of the Rule.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed change to its give up rule
strikes the right balance between the various views and interests
across the industry. For example, although the proposed change now
requires TPHs to seek authorization from CTPHs (other than their
Guarantors) in order to have the ability to give them up, each TPH will
still have the ability to give up their Guarantor without obtaining
further authorization. Additionally, the Exchange notes that CTPH
authorization will not be on a trade-by-trade basis. Accordingly, the
rule still provides for a procedure for a CTPH to ``reject'' a trade in
accordance with the Rules, both on the trade date and T+1, which
provides recourse to those CTPHs which, notwithstanding prior
authorization to use them generally as a Give Up, should not be
obligated to clear certain trades for which they are given up (provided
they have a valid reason to reject the trade). The Exchange also notes
that ultimately, the trade can always be assigned to the Guarantor of
the executing TPH.\14\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is reasonable and continues to provide certainty that a
CTPH will always be responsible for a trade, which protects investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As noted in the filing that originally adopted current Rule
6.21, the Exchange believes that the executing TPH's Guarantor,
absent a CTPH that agrees to accept the trade, should become the
Give Up on any trade which an Authorized Give Up determines to
reject in accordance with the rule, because the Guarantor, by virtue
of having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Authorization, has already
accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made
by the executing TPH. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72668
(July 24, 2014), 79 FR 44229 (July 30, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the corresponding changes to Rule 6.21, makes
clear the proposed change to the give up process and maintains clarity
in the rules, thereby protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose an unnecessary burden
on intramarket competition because it will apply equally to all
similarly situated TPHs and CTPHs. The Exchange also notes that, should
the proposed changes make Cboe Options more attractive for trading,
market participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to
become TPHs on Cboe Options to take advantage of the trading
opportunities.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-55. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-55, and should be submitted on
or before September 13, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18160 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17058-17059]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06039]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0236; FRL-9605-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes
in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP)
received on February 11, 2020. In the submission, Missouri requests to
revise a regulation that controls emissions from reactor processes and
distillation operations in the St. Louis 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The revisions to this rule include amending the
rule applicability section for sources subject to the rule, removing
unnecessary words, updating incorporations by reference, amending
definitions specific to the rule, updating test and reference methods,
and other minor edits. These revisions do not impact the stringency of
the SIP or air quality. Approval of these revisions will ensure
consistency between State and federally approved rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2022-0236 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Heitman, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7664; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0236, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 10 Code of State
Regulation (CSR) 10-5.550, Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes
in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry in the
Missouri SIP. The revisions amend the rule applicability section for
sources subject to this rule, remove unnecessary words, update
incorporations by reference, amend definitions specific to the rule,
update test and reference methods, and make other minor edits. The
EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support
document (TSD) included in this docket.
    Missouri received six comments from EPA and three comments from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program
staff during the comment period. Missouri responded to all comments as
noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action.
As described in the TSD for this action, Missouri amended the rule in
response to some of EPA's comments. In response to an EPA comment
concerning the applicability date in the draft rule, Missouri changed
the applicability date to affect process units existing as of February
29, 2000. Missouri explained that the applicability date change was
added to clarify that the rule was originally promulgated to meet ozone
reasonably available control technology requirements, which were
intended to apply to existing sources at the time of the rule's
promulgation. EPA finds that Missouri has adequately addressed the
comments.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to this rule
because it will not have a negative impact on air quality or affect the
stringency of the SIP.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from May 1, 2019, to
August 1, 2019 and received nine comments. The State revised the rule
based on the comments received. In addition, as explained above and in
more detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the revision meets
the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to revise 10 CSR
10-5.550. Because this rule was previously approved into Missouri's
SIP, we are soliciting comments solely on the proposed revisions to the
rule and not on the existing text that is approved into Missouri's SIP.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting
comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulations described in Section
II of

this preamble as set forth in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-5.550'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
     Missouri citation              Title          effective date    EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-5.550..................  Control of Volatile         1/30/2020  [Date of publication  .......................
                             Organic Compound                       of the final rule
                             Emissions From                         in the Federal
                             Reactor Processes                      Register], [Federal
                             and Distillation                       Register citation
                             Operations Processes                   of the final rule].
                             in the Synthetic
                             Organic Chemical
                             Manufacturing
                             Industry.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-06039 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P