January 4, 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email to Bryce Bird<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Daly

Dear Bryce:

I am writing to make you aware that EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy today signed a Federal Register notice in which the EPA makes findings that certain states have not submitted complete state implementation plans (SIPs), known as "infrastructure" SIPs, to address the required elements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). One of these states is Utah.

The infrastructure SIPs were due to EPA on March 12, 2011, 3 years after the promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is taking action at this time as the result of a court order filed on October 17, 2012, that directs the EPA to make findings of failure to submit complete infrastructure SIP elements.

As explained more fully in the Finding of Failure to Submit which was signed today, the Agency has determined that Utah's submission is not complete.  On December 12, 2012, the state by letter submitted documents that summarize the state's existing infrastructure SIP elements and explain that these elements satisfy the state's obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, since the public notice and comment process has not been completed, the Agency has determined that the state's submission is, therefore, incomplete. The requirement in the CAA and EPA rules for public notice and opportunity for a hearing is to inform the public that the SIP is being revised and allow for comment as to whether the state regulations satisfy the relevant specific obligation under the CAA, in this case the obligation stemming from the promulgation of the revised 2008 ozone NAAQS.  As a result of determining that Utah's submissions is incomplete in its entirety, the Agency has found that the state failed to submit an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

This finding does not address interstate transport under §110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012) concluded that a SIP cannot be deemed to lack a required submission or deemed deficient for failure to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation until after the EPA quantifies that obligation. This decision is not yet final as the mandate has not been issued and the EPA has petitioned for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to reconsider that conclusion. Nonetheless, during the pendency of the appeal, the EPA intends to act in accordance with the holdings in the EME Homer City opinion. Therefore, at this time the EPA is not making a finding that Utah failed to submit a complete SIP to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

Within 2 years after the effective date of this finding, EPA is obligated by CAA section 110(c)(1) to either fully approve Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to fill any remaining gaps in the SIP.

I look forward to working closely with you to ensure that the CAA requirements are met in a timely and efficient manner. If you have any questions please contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or contact Kathy Ayala at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10509-10510]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3985]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0804, FRL-9512-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Drug Testing for Contract Employees (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2011-0804 to, (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Ramrakha, Policy Training and
Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval
according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On October 31,
2011, 76 FR 67182, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this
ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0804, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC
Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of
Environmental Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in

the system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Drug Testing for Contract Employees.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2183.05, OMB Control No. 2030-0044.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout
the nation in response to environmental emergencies involving the
release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or
hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the
surrounding environment. Releases may be accidental, deliberate, or may
be caused by natural disasters. Contractors responding to any of these
types of incidents may be responsible for testing their employees for
the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine
(PCP), and any other controlled substances. The testing for drugs must
be completed prior to contract employee performance. The contractor
shall maintain records associated with all drug tests.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated on average to be
2.25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: EPA contractor employees who work at
sensitive sites.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 450.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1012.5.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $102,870 includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This ICR represents an increase from 450
hours to 1,012.5 hours from the total estimated burden currently
identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The difference
is in the amount of time allocated for an employee to provide a sample.
The previous estimate did not take into account time for the employee
to travel to and from the testing lab. Market research indicates the
average time for an employee to travel to and from a testing site and
provide a sample is 1.5 hours versus the fifteen minutes previously
estimated.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-3985 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 52558-52560]
[DOCID:fr26au10-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62744; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Cancellation Fee

August 19, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 13, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to assess a Cancellation Fee on all
electronically delivered all-or-none (``AON'') orders that are
submitted by a Professional and subsequently cancelled by the party
that originally submitted the order.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the manner in
which the Cancellation Fee is assessed on members. The Exchange
proposes to assess a Cancellation Fee of $1.10 on all electronically
delivered \3\ AON orders that are submitted by a Professional \4\
(hereafter ``Professional AON'') and subsequently cancelled by the
party that originally submitted the order. The Exchange has observed
that the number of cancelled Professional AON orders greatly exceeds
the normal order cancellation activity on the Exchange for all other
order types, and thus affects the automated order handling capacity of
the Exchange's systems. The Exchange proposes to include Professional
AON orders into the calculation of cancelled orders to assess the
Cancellation Fee to recover costs associated with system issues that
are attributable to cancelled AON orders. A Professional order is
treated, for purposes of priority, as a Customer order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Electronically delivered orders are delivered through the
Exchange's options trading platform known as PHLX XL II.
    \4\ Currently, a Professional is treated in the same manner as
an off-floor broker-dealer for purposes of Rules 1014(g) (except
with respect to AON orders, which will be treated like Customer
orders), 1033(e), 1064.02 (except professional orders will be
considered Customer orders subject to facilitation), and 1080.08 as
well as Options Floor Procedure Advices B-6, B-11 and F-5. Member
organizations must indicate whether orders are for professionals.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses a Cancellation Fee of $2.10 per
order on member organizations for each cancelled electronically
delivered Customer order that exceeds the number of Customer orders
executed on the Exchange by that member organization in a given month.
The Exchange calculates the Cancellation Fee by aggregating all
Customer orders and cancellations received from a member organization
in a particular calendar month. At least 500 Customer cancellations
must be made in a given month by a member organization in order for a
member organization to be assessed the Cancellation Fee (``500
Threshold''). The Cancellation Fee is not assessed in a month in which
fewer than 500 electronically delivered Customer orders \6\ are
cancelled. Simple

cancels and cancel-replacement orders are the types of orders that are
counted when calculating the number of electronically delivered
orders.\7\ The following order activity is exempt from the Cancellation
Fee: (i) Pre-market cancellations; \8\ (ii) Complex Orders \9\ that are
submitted electronically; (iii) unfilled Immediate-or-Cancel \10\
Customer orders; and (iv) cancelled Customer orders that improved the
Exchange's prevailing bid or offer (PBBO) market at the time the
Customer orders were received by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of assessing the Cancellation Fee, Customer
orders from the same member organization in the same series on the
same side of the market that are executed at the same price within a
300 second period will be aggregated and counted as one executed
Customer option order.
    \7\ A cancel-replacement order is a contingency order consisting
of two or more parts which require the immediate cancellation of a
previously received order prior to the replacement of a new order
with new terms and conditions. If the previously placed order is
already filled partially or in its entirety the replacement order is
automatically canceled or reduced by such number. See Exchange Rule
1066(c)(7).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53226 (February 3,
2006), 71 FR 7602 (February 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-92); and 53670
(April 18, 2006), 71 FR 21087 (April 24, 2006) (SR-PHLX-2006-21).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60046 (June 4, 2009),
74 FR 28083 (June 12, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-44).
    \9\ A complex order is a spread, straddle, combination, ratio or
collar order, all of which consist of more than one component,
priced like a single order at a net debit or credit based on the
prices of the individual components. See Exchange Rule 1080.08
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \10\ An Immediate-or-Cancel (IOC) order is a limit order that is
to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so
executed shall be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to continue to assess the $2.10 Cancellation
Fee on all Customer orders that exceed the 500 Threshold for cancelled
orders. Professional AON orders would be computed in calculating the
500 Threshold before any order is assessed a Cancellation Fee.\11\
Beyond the 500 Threshold, each Customer order would be assessed a
Cancellation Fee of $2.10 per order; this is not changing. The Exchange
proposes to assess each Professional AON order, beyond the 500
Threshold, a $1.10 per order Cancellation Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In reaching the 500 Threshold, orders must be executed from
the same member organization in the same series on the same side of
the market and executed at the same price within a 300 second
period. Orders are aggregated and counted as one executed Customer
or Professional AON option order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the
Cancellation Fee are reasonable because they will ease system
congestion and allow the Exchange to recover costs associated with
excessive order cancellation activity. The Exchange has experienced a
significant increase in the number of Professional AON orders. Also,
the Exchange believes that the amendment to the Cancellation Fee is
equitable because the addition of the Professional AON orders to the
Cancellation Fee computation would continue to be applied equitably
among members according to system use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Section I, Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols, of the Fee Schedule, a Customer is
entitled to receive a $.20 rebate for adding liquidity, is assessed no
fee for adding liquidity and is assessed a $.25 fee for removing
liquidity. A Professional in that same fee model is entitled to receive
a $.20 rebate for adding liquidity, is assessed no fee for adding
liquidity and is assessed a $.40 fee for removing liquidity. The
Professional AON orders would be assessed a fee that is $1.00 lower
($1.10 as compared to $2.10) than fees assessed for Customer orders
over the 500 Threshold.
    With respect to the fees in Section II, Equity Options Fees, of the
Fee Schedule, a Customer is not assessed a fee for options transactions
(penny or non-penny); however, a Professional is assessed a $.20 fee
for options transactions (penny and non-penny). Neither a Customer nor
a Professional is assessed an Options Surcharge in RUT, RMN, MNX or
NDX. Again, there would be a $1.00 differential between Customer and
Professional AON orders with this proposed Cancellation Fee.
    The Exchange assesses the Cancellation Fee by aggregating all
Customer orders. Cancellations received from a member organization in a
particular calendar month from the same member organization in the same
series on the same side of the market and executed at the same price
within a 300-second period are aggregated and counted as one option
order. The Professional AON orders, which receive a Customer priority,
are proposed to be included in that calculation. The Exchange would
assess the Cancellation Fee only after the 500 Threshold is reached.
The Exchange believes that this proposal is equitable because: (i) The
Exchange is assessing the fee on aggregate Customer orders (including
Professional AON orders) because they are the specific cause of the
system congestion; \14\ (ii) Professional AON orders have the benefit
of the Customer priority and therefore should be treated similar to
Customers in terms of the Cancellation Fee assessment; and (iii) the
Exchange proposes to assess a lower Cancellation Fee on a Professional
order as compared to a Customer order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange has no evidence that Broker-Dealer and other
market participants contribute to system congestion as a result of
cancellation orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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)(ii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-105 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-Phlx-2010-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\17\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-
Phlx-2010-105 and should be submitted on or before September 16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21177 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42324-42327]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15026]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748; FRL-9217-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC). We are approving rescissions of local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On February 10, 2022 (87 FR 7784), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule rescissions into the Arizona SIP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rule No.                        Title                 Local adopted date              SIP approved date                 FR citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27..............................  Performance Tests.......  June 23, 1980.................  April 12, 1982...............  47 FR 15579
32 A............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (General
                                   prohibitions).
32 B............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Treatment or
                                   processing of animal or
                                   vegetable matter).
32 C............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Storage
                                   requirements).
32 D............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Stack, vent,
                                   or other outlet).
32 E............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Hydrogen
                                   sulfide).
32 F............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Relating to
                                   sulfur oxide and
                                   sulfuric acid).
34 A............................  Organic Solvents-         June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Volatile Organic
                                   Compounds (VOC).
34 D.1..........................  Dry Cleaning............  June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
34 E.1..........................  Spray Paint and Other     June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Surface Coating
                                   Operations (General
                                   Requirements).
34 E.3..........................  Spray Paint and Other     June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Surface Coating
                                   Operations
                                   (Architectural Coating).
34 L............................  Cutback Asphalt.........  June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
81..............................  Operation...............  August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
340.............................  Cutback and Emulsified    September 13, 1988............  February 1, 1996.............  61 FR 3578
                                   Asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve the rescission of these rules because we
determined that the rescissions comply with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the
rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment from the City of Phoenix in
support of the EPA's February 10, 2022 proposed action to rescind the
proposed rules from the Arizona's SIP. We acknowledge the comment, and
we are approving the rescissions of these rules from the SIP. We also
received one anonymous comment which we respond to below.
    Comment: The commenter's primary concern with the EPA's proposed
action is that it appears to ``remov[e] longstanding local rules
regarding air quality, due to the fact that those same standards are
covered nationally,'' which would be problematic if ``this rule change
was requested with the intention of ultimately undoing national
standards.'' The commenter notes that if a potential change in the
national standards took place, ``[rolling back air quality standards]
would be far smoother than if the local rules were still in the way of
those whose aim is government deregulation at the expense of the
environment.'' They recommend that these rules remain in place as ``a
backup option to keeping important public health rules.'' The commenter
also raises environmental justice concerns with respect to the proposed
SIP modification and stresses the need to maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to protect marginalized communities within
the Phoenix and South Phoenix area.
    EPA's Response: As we noted in our February 10, 2022 proposed rule,

modifications to a SIP must comply with all requirements of the CAA.
The CAA contains several anti-backsliding provisions, which preclude a
state from altering or removing provisions from an approved
implementation plan if the revision would reduce air quality
protection.\1\ For example, under CAA section 110(l), a SIP revision
cannot be approved if it will interfere with attainment or other
applicable CAA requirements. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits any
control measure in effect in a nonattainment area prior to the
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to be modified after enactment,
unless such modification yields equivalent or greater emission
reductions. Consistent with these anti-backsliding provisions, there
are circumstances in which it may be reasonable to relieve states of
requirements that are no longer necessary, or that can be replaced by
other forms of protection that might better meet the local needs and
circumstances of an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 78 FR 34178, 34211 (June 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) to our
proposal,\2\ the State of Arizona submitted Maricopa County's Air
Quality Regulations for approval into the Arizona SIP on January 28,
1972. The MCAQD revised various rules in the 1980s to reflect CAA
requirements to implement reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for various source categories and to generally modernize their
local rule book. The revised rules were renumbered from the existing
two-digit system to a three-digit system with the unamended two-digit
rules remaining in the SIP. Some of the locally revised rules were not
submitted to the EPA for inclusion into the SIP at the time. As a
result, there is a difference in requirements between some of the SIP
approved two-digit rules and the locally adopted three-digit rules
which can be a problem when the EPA, MCAQD, the regulated community, or
the public is trying to determine the applicable rule. This is known as
a SIP gap. In April 2016, the EPA analyzed this SIP gap to determine if
the older two-digit rules could potentially be replaced by newer
provisions that are currently only locally applicable. This analysis
had several recommendations for updating the SIP, including the
recission of obsolete two- and three-digit rules without replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See TSD, Docket ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP recissions from our February 10, 2022 proposed rule fall
into four categories: (1) nine provisions that do not establish
emission limits, enforce the NAAQS, or improve or impact the stringency
of other measures in the SIP; (2) two provisions related to a source
category subject to a control techniques guideline (CTG) document, for
which the State submitted and the EPA approved a negative declaration
stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by
that CTG; (3) two provisions that have been superseded by newer SIP-
approved rules; and (4) one provision that is not enforceable. Further
explanation on the EPA's rationale for the proposed approval is
provided below.
    For the first category, Rule 27, Rule 32 sections A, C, D, and Rule
34 section E do not contain specific emissions limits or other elements
necessary for enforcement. For example, Rule 32 section C states:

    Materials including, but not limited to, solvents or other
volatile compounds, paints, acids, alkalies, pesticides, fertilizer
and manure shall be processed, stored, used and transported in such
a manner and by such means that they will not unreasonably
evaporate, leak, escape or be otherwise discharged into the ambient
air so as to cause or contribute to air pollution; and where means
are available to reduce effectively the contribution to air
pollution from evaporation, leakage or discharge, the installation
and use of such control methods, devices or equipment shall be
mandatory.

    This provision contains no specific work practice, emission
limitation, or enforcement mechanism that would result in the reduction
of emissions. Therefore, the EPA has concluded, based on a CAA section
110(l) analysis, that removal of this provision would not interfere
with Maricopa County's progress toward attainment, reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    Additionally, Rule 32 sections B and E, Rule 34 section D.1, and
Rule 81 do not regulate categories of emissions related to any NAAQS,
and thus do not contribute to Maricopa County's attainment of the
NAAQS. For example, Rule 34 section D.1 regulates the emission of
perchloroethylene. In 1996, the EPA deleted perchloroethylene from the
definition of VOC on the basis that the chemical has negligible
photochemical reactivity.\3\ Because these emissions are no longer
considered VOC emissions under the CAA, Maricopa County can no longer
consider their reduction as progress towards attaining the NAAQS.\4\
Thus, the EPA has concluded, based on a 110(l) analysis, that removal
of the provision will not interfere with the area's progress towards
attainment or any other applicable CAA requirement. Additional analysis
for each provision in this category can be found in the TSD in the
docket for the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 61 FR 5688 (February 7, 1996).
    \4\ See id. at 5689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second category, Rule 34 section L and Rule 340 contain
similar requirements for the regulation of cutback asphalt, which is a
source category subject to the CTG EPA-450/2-77-037 ``Cutback
Asphalt.'' When there are no existing sources in a nonattainment area
covered by a particular CTG document, or no major non-CTG sources of
NOx or VOC, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those
sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such
sources in the relevant nonattainment area. The State submitted, and
the EPA approved, a negative declaration in Maricopa County on January
7, 2021, (86 FR 971) for cutback asphalt. This negative declaration
applies to both Rule 34 section L and Rule 340. Therefore, the EPA has
concluded, based on a 110(l) analysis, that because there are no
sources of emissions being regulated by Rule 34 section L and Rule 340
in the nonattainment area, removal of these provisions will not
interfere with Maricopa County's progress towards attainment or any
other applicable CAA requirement.
    For the third category, Rule 32 section F and Rule 34 section A
were both superseded by subsequent SIP submissions from Maricopa
County. Rule 32 section F was superseded by SIP Rule 510, ``Air Quality
Standards'' (86 FR 54628, October 04, 2021), and Rule 34 section A was
superseded by an updated definition for VOC in the SIP, Maricopa Rule
100, ``General Provisions and Definitions'' (84 FR 13543, April 5,
2019). We conclude that the actions approving Rule 100 and Rule 510
into the SIP are adequate to ensure the removal of Rule 32 section F
and Rule 34 section A would not interfere with Maricopa County's
progress towards attainment, RFP, or any other applicable CAA
requirement.
    For the fourth category, there are no test methods that apply to
the regulation in Rule 34 section E.1, which requires surface coating
operations to utilize an ``enclosed area designed to contain not less
than ninety-six percent (96%) by weight of the overspray.'' Without a
test method that can determine if a spray enclosure can capture 96% of
the overspray, the provision is unenforceable and has no impact on the
air quality in Maricopa County. The EPA finds that the provision's
removal would therefore not interfere with

attainment, RFP, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    The provisions proposed to be rescinded from the Arizona SIP
generally do not achieve emission reductions or are already codified
elsewhere in the SIP. The removal of these rules would not impact the
overall stringency of the Arizona SIP, and as a result, the approval of
this rule action will allow Maricopa to maintain rules in the SIP that
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations.\5\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. As described in our proposed rule and reiterated here,
approval of these recissions complies with CAA sections 110(l) and 193
because these SIP revisions would not interfere with any applicable CAA
requirements, including requirements concerning RFP and attainment of
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
recissions as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving
these rule recissions into the Arizona SIP. The rule recissions will
remove the previously approved Rule 27, Rule 32 sections A (all
subsections), B, C, D, E, and F; Rule 34 sections A, D.1, E.1, E.3 and
L (all subsections); Rule 81; and Rule 340 from the SIP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The provisions of Rule 34 were inadvertently omitted from
our original action converting the Arizona SIP to the tabular
notebook format on November 23, 2016 (81 FR 85038). We will recodify
the remaining paragraphs of Rule 34 (consistent with this action's
rescissions) in a separate rulemaking, and as such, our regulatory
text will not address any conflicting provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. The EPA is also finalizing deletion of
rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the
applicable Arizona SIP. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5,
as discussed in Sections I, II and III of this preamble, the EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference for the rescission of the
Arizona rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
removal from the SIP and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\7\ The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 13, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends part 52, chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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 D--Arizona

Sec.  52.120   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.120 in paragraph (c) amend ``Table 4 to Paragraph (c)--
EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations'' by
removing the entries for ``Rule 27'', ``Rule 32 (Paragraphs A through F
only)'', ``Rule 81'', and ``Rule 340''.

[FR Doc. 2022-15026 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

11/02/2007 08:36 AM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, darryl weatherhead, Norm Possiel, Pat Dolwick, Rich Mason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

workshop follow-up and materials

Rob, Enclosed are the workshop notes and follow-up questions.  We have provided immediate answers to some of the questions, others will be followed up over the next few weeks.

Also here is the link to the workshop materials.   In reference to yesterday's questions about the modeling platform, please see presentations 3 and 4 on the list.  As I indicated, we will ask the people responsible for the modeling platform to give a separate hour presentation to the interagency review group to get the full set of members up to speed on the changes and implications.  I expect that it will follow the same presentation which was given during the workshop.

Let me know if you have any quesitons.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

Workshop briefing slides at:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/meetings/


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 23, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21285

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. (NORTHWEST) filed 5/17/05 for:

XX  Allocation of 2 U.S.-Hong Kong fifth-freedom all-cargo frequencies
in connection with Northwest’s plans to expand its existing all-cargo
services between Hong Kong and Manila, the Philippines.  Northwest
states that it intends to implement two additional weekly roundtrips
between Hong Kong and Manila on a year-round basis as soon as it
receives all necessary government approvals.

Applicant rep: Ronald P. Brower<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst: Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: June 23, 2005, and will
remain in effect, subject to the

conditions below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the October 19, 2002,
Memorandum of Understanding

between the Government of the United States and the Government of the
Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

Conditions:  Consistent with our standard practice, the frequency
allocation granted is subject to the condition that if any frequency is
not used for a period of 90 days (once inaugurated), the allocation as
to that frequency will expire automatically and the unused frequencies
will revert to the Department for reallocation. If Northwest does not
begin service with the each of the two allocated frequencies within 90
days from the date of this Notice, each unused frequency will
automatically revert to the Department for reallocation.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Northwest currently operates four weekly roundtrips in the mentioned
market, using frequencies that the Department allocated to Northwest in
Order 2003-9-9.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66918-66921]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98484; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify Rule
980NYP

September 22, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 18, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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 modify Rule 980NYP(g)(1) to expand the
existing Complex Strategy Limit. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's website 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 modify Rule 980NYP(g) regarding risk
checks of Electronic Complex Orders (or ECOs) \4\ to expand the
existing Complex Strategy Limit.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to impose a limit on complex strategies per underlying symbol, as
described below.\6\ The Exchange notes that an identical rule change
was recently adopted on its affiliated exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') and therefore this proposal raises no new or novel
issues not previously considered by the Commission.\7\ In addition, at
least one other options exchange likewise may impose a limit on new
complex order strategies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 980NYP(a)(7) defines an ``Electronic Complex Order'' or
``ECO'' to mean any Complex Order, as defined in Rule 900.3NYP(f).
Rule 900.3NYP(f) (providing a Complex Order is ``any order involving
the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more option series
in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a ratio
that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than
or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy.'').
    \5\ The Exchange notes that this proposed change modifies a
Pillar rule (i.e., with a ``P'' modifier) that has not yet been
implemented. The Exchange anticipates migrating to its Pillar
trading platform beginning on October 23, 2023. As is the case with
all Pillar rules, this proposed rule change (as well as the entire
Rule 980NYP) will not be implemented until all other Pillar-related
rule filings are approved or operative, as applicable, and the
Exchange announces the migration of underlying symbols to Pillar by
Trader Update.
    \6\ See proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(1) (Complex Strategy Limits). A
``complex strategy'' means a particular combination of leg
components and their ratios to one another. New complex strategies
can be created when the Exchange receives either a request to create
a new complex strategy or an ECO with a new complex strategy. See
Rule 980NYP(a)(4).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98278 (September 1,
2023), 88 FR 62113 (September 8, 2023) (SR-NYSEARCA-2023-56)
(immediately effective rule change to modify Rule 6.91P-O(g) to
expand the existing Complex Strategy Limit to include a limit on
complex strategies per symbol, per day).
    \8\ See, e.g., Cboe Rule 5.33(a) (providing, in its definition
of ``complex strategy'' that Cboe ``may limit the number of new
complex strategies that may be in the [Cboe] System or entered for
any EFID (which EFID limit would be the same for all Users) at a
particular time'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 980NYP(g) describes the ``ECO Risk Checks,'' which are
designed to help ATP Holders to effectively manage risk when trading
ECOs.\9\ Rule 980NYP(g)(1) sets forth the ``Complex Strategy Limit,''
which establishes a limit on the maximum number of new complex
strategies that may be requested to be created per Market Participant
Identifier or MPID, which limit would be announced by Trader
Update.\10\ Under current functionality, when an MPID reaches the limit
on the maximum number of new complex strategies, the Exchange rejects
all requests to create new complex strategies from that MPID for the
rest of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An ATP Holder is a natural person, sole proprietorship,
partnership, corporation, limited liability company or other
organization, in good standing, which has been issued an ATP, and
references to ``member'', and ``member organization'' as those terms
are used in the Rules of the Exchange should be deemed to be
references to ATP Holders. See Rule 900.2NY. An ATP is an American
Trading Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved
securities transactions on the Exchange's Trading Facilities. See
id.
    \10\ Per Rule 900.2NY, an MPID refers to the identifier assigned
to the orders and quotes of a single ATP Holder for the execution
and clearing of trades on the Exchange by that permit holder. An ATP
Holder may obtain multiple MPIDs and each such MPID may be
associated with one or more sub-identifiers of that MPID.'' See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the established Complex Strategy Limit, Rule
980NYP(g)(1) also authorizes the Exchange to reject a request to create
a new complex strategy from any MPID whenever the Exchange determines
it is necessary in the interests of a fair and orderly market. The
established Complex Strategy Limit (the ``Strategy Limit''), and the
Exchange's discretion related thereto, is a system protection tool that
enables the Exchange to prevent any single MPID from creating more than
a limited number of complex strategies during the trading day.
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 980NYP(g)(1) to adopt another
limit for the number of permissible complex strategies requested to be
created by an MPID in a trading day, except that the new limit would be
based on the number of complex strategies in the same underlying symbol
(the ``Strategy Limit per Symbol''). Like the existing Strategy Limit,
the proposed Strategy Limit per Symbol would operate as a system
protection tool that enables the Exchange to prevent any single MPID
from creating more than a limited number of complex strategies in a
particular symbol during the trading day.
    The Exchange has observed that the high volume of requests to
create complex strategies in the same underlying symbol can tax
Exchange resources and result in latency in providing acknowledgements
to ATP Holders for all series in that same underlying symbol. As such,
the proposed Strategy Limit per Symbol would augment and add
granularity to the existing Complex Strategy Limit by allowing the
Exchange to establish separate limits based on the underlying symbol.
The Exchange believes that MPIDs may benefit from this added
granularity. For example, an MPID that sends a significant number of
complex series creation requests for a particular underlying symbol may
breach the Strategy Limit per Symbol for that underlying. However, that
MPID would continue to have the ability to request complex strategies
in other symbols--unless or until that MPID breaches the Strategy Limit
per Symbol in a different symbol or--in the aggregate--breaches the
Complex Strategy Limit. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would benefit all market participants because it would curtail
(or remove) the latency that has at times resulted from the Exchange
receiving a significant number of requests for new complex strategies
in the same underlying.
    To accommodate the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to
reorganize and re-word certain of the existing text without changing
functionality. As proposed, Rule 980NYP(g)(1) would be re-named (in
plural) ``Complex Strategy Limits'' (as opposed to a singular ``Complex
Strategy Limit'') and would state the following:

    The Exchange will establish limits, which will be announced by
Trader Update, on (A) the maximum number of new complex strategies
(irrespective of the underlying symbol) that an MPID may request be
created (the ``Strategy Limit''); and (B) the maximum number of new
complex strategies in a particular underlying symbol that an MPID
may request be created (the ``Strategy Limit per Symbol''). When an
MPID breaches the Strategy Limit, the Exchange will reject for the
rest of the trading day, all requests from that MPID to create new
complex strategies. When an MPID breaches the Strategy Limit per
Symbol in a particular underlying, the Exchange will reject for the
rest of the trading day all requests from that MPID to create
complex strategies in that underlying symbol. Notwithstanding the
established Strategy Limit and Strategy Limit per Symbol, the
Exchange may reject a request to create a new complex strategy from
any MPID whenever the Exchange determines it is necessary in the
interests of a fair and orderly market.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(1) (Complex Strategy Limits).

    For example, if the Strategy Limit is 100, an MPID has already
requested and created 100 complex strategies in a trading day, the
Exchange will reject any request for the 101st complex strategy for the
remainder of the trading day. The same logic applies for the Strategy
Limit per Symbol such that if this limit is 50 and an MPID has already
requested and created 50 complex strategies in the underlying symbol
XYZ

in a trading day, the Exchange will reject any request for the 51st
complex strategy in XYZ for the remainder of the trading day.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed modification is merely an
extension of existing functionality that would help the Exchange add
granularity to, and better calibrate, its risk settings related to the
number of Complex Strategies per Symbol for an MPID per trading day and
is therefore non-controversial.
Implementation
    This proposed change modifies a Pillar rule (i.e., with a ``P''
modifier). As is the case with all Pillar rules, this proposed rule
change (as well as the entire Rule 980NYP) will not be implemented
until all other Pillar-related rule filings are approved or operative,
as applicable, and the Exchange announces the migration of underlying
symbols to Pillar by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, because
it is 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 facilitating
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has observed that the high volume of requests to
create complex strategies in the same underlying symbol can tax
Exchange resources and result in latency in providing acknowledgements
to ATP Holders for all series in that underlying symbol. As such, the
proposed Strategy Limit per Symbol would augment and add granularity to
the existing Complex Strategy Limit by allowing the Exchange to
establish separate limits based on the underlying symbol. The Exchange
believes that MPIDs may benefit from this added granularity. For
example, an MPID that sends a significant number of complex series
creation requests for a particular underlying symbol may breach the
Strategy Limit per Symbol for that underlying. However, that MPID would
continue to have the ability to request complex strategies in other
symbols--unless or until that MPID breaches the Strategy Limit per
Symbol in a different symbol or--in the aggregate--breaches the Complex
Strategy Limit. Thus, the proposed change would 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 because it would curtail (or remove) the latency that has at
times resulted from the Exchange receiving a significant number of
requests for new complex strategies in the same underlying.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to expand the limits
placed on Complex Strategies per MPID would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would modify existing functionality in a
manner that would enable the Exchange to add granularity to, and better
calibrate, its risk settings related to the number of Complex
Strategies in the same underlying symbol requested in a trading day.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would help maintain a fair and
orderly market because it would enhance an existing system protection
tool to enable the Exchange to prevent any single MPID from creating
more than a limited number of complex strategies in the same underlying
symbol during the trading day.

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 would impose any burden on intra-
market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act because the proposed Strategy Limit per
Symbol would apply equally to all market participants that request new
complex strategies. As stated herein, the proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange the ability to better calibrate risk settings
related to the number of Complex Strategies per Symbol for an MPID per
trading day, which in turn should benefit all market participants
because (as described above) it would curtail (or remove) the latency
that has at times resulted from the Exchange receiving a significant
number of requests for new complex strategies in the same underlying.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not
impose a burden on competing options exchanges. The Exchange notes that
it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues. When an exchange offers enhanced
functionality (like the proposed Strategy Limit per Symbol) that
distinguishes it from the competition and participants find it useful,
it has been the Exchange's experience that competing exchanges will
move to adopt similar functionality. Thus, the Exchange believes that
this type of competition amongst exchanges is beneficial to the entire
marketplace as it can result in enhanced processes, functionality, and
technologies.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-45 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-NYSEAMER-2023-45. 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 (https://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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NYSEAMER-2023-45 and should
be submitted on or before October 19, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21134 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Meeting with Moapa Band of Paiute Indians on the Reid Gardner Power Plant proposed BART Rule
                                Washington D.C.
                                April 17, 2012

Participants (sign in sheet attached)
William Anderson, Chairman, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians
Daniel Galpern, Western Environmental Law Center
Bill Corcoran, Sierra Club
EPA Attendees:  Gina McCarthy, OAR; Janet McCabe, OAR; Steve Page, OAQPS; Greg Greene, OAQPS; Deborah Jordan, Region 9 Air Division; Colleen McKaughan, Region 9 Air Division; Jeff Besougloff, OITA/AIEO; Darrel Harmon, OAR;
Comments:
Mr. Haplern began by discussing how the Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) is located one-half mile from individual homes on the reservation.  When the wind blows, sometimes as hard as 60 miles per hour, ashes from the ash pond blow directly into the community and affect the health and welfare of tribal members living there.  He asked EPA to adopt a stronger BART rule in order to change how the Public Utilities Commission looks at this plant. Mr. Halpern stated that RGGS is planning an expansion of both the ash pits and waste water ponds on the site to increase the available storage.
Chairman Anderson talked about health effects on the Tribe of 300 individuals occurring 24 hours a day 7 days a week compared to exposures suffered by workers equipped with personal protective equipment on the site for only 8 hours a day five days a week.  He talked about how fly ash covers the reservation and citizens during high winds causing health problems including an unusually high proportion of thyroid problems present among tribal members.  Chairman Anderson discussed that the reservation's residential area is roughly 1,000 acres out of the overall size of 74,000 acres.  He is concerned that the plant gets warning of surprise compliance inspections because they visibly clean up prior to inspectors arriving at the RGGS.  The oldest boiler at the RGGS is from 1965.

Mr. Halpern invited EPA leadership to visit the site to see how the RGGS endangers the way of life for the Tribe.  To demonstrate their dedication to lowering impacts, the Tribe is negotiating installation of a large solar power facility that NV Energy declined to participate with. He stated that they are meeting requirements to use alternative power using hydro-electric facilities elsewhere in the state.

Chairman Anderson talked about the reservation being established in 1875 by treaty, and how the Tribe had resided in this place for generations before that date.  He noted that the RGGS has shut down on occasion without creating a shortage of power in the state, and that the RGGS is being used less as natural gas facilities operate more economically compared to coal fired facilities.

Chairman Anderson noted that the Public Utility Commission hearing on the BART Rule is coming up.

Colleen McKaughan provided details that the hearing will be in Overton NV on May 3, 2012 at the Overton High School.

Chairman Anderson noted that the high school is 25 miles away, and noting that the PUC is supposed to be at the closest location to the RGGS, and that the Tribe has a facility on the reservation with adequate equipment, requested that the hearing be held on the reservation.

Mr. Corcoran stated that the power plant is not necessary to the NV grid, and that the decision to require SNCR is too narrowly focused on Regional Haze increment changes resulting from the emissions, and doesn't address other issues including Environmental Justice and cultural impacts.  He asked that EPA reiterated the Chairman's request to move the PUC hearing to the Tribal auditorium.  He also disagreed with the statement in the Rule publication that there are no tribal implications with this Rule.  He noted that the PUC asked for analysis, and NV Energy estimated that the impact on rates from shutting down RGGS would equal twenty seven cents per month for each ratepayer.  He also noted that the RGGS believes that they are already MATS compliant due to their use of baghouses to control emissions.

Ms. McCarthy thanked the visitors for providing this information and said she would look into their concerns with Region 9.


[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 57106-57107]
[DOCID:fr17se10-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Sale of Airport Property at Houlton
International Airport, Houlton, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is requesting public comment on the Town of Houlton,
Maine's request to sell (.73 acres) of Airport property. The property
was acquired from the United States Government under Surplus Property
Deed dated July 14, 1947. This property was sold to a fixed based
operator. The request for release is to correct a compliance finding.
    Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21) requires the FAA to provide an
opportunity for public notice and comment to the ``waiver'' or
``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain
airport property for aeronautical purposes.
    The revenue generated from the disposal of airport property was
used in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use
of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16,
1999.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment by
contacting Mr. Douglas Hazlett, Town Manager, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by contacting Donna R. Witte, Federal Aviation Administration, 16 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, Telephone 781-238-
7624.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna R. Witte at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a legal description of the
property:
    A certain parcel of land located at Houlton International Airport
in Houlton, County of Aroostook and State of Maine and being more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at a three-quarter inch
(\3/4\[sec]) iron pipe marking the southwest corner of Lot Seventeen
(17) as shown on plan titled: ``1984 Addition of Lots Numbered 1
through 20 at the Airport Industrial Park, Houlton, Maine'', recorded
in the Southern Aroostook Registry of Deeds in

Plan Book 36, Page 37, said corner marking the boundary between Lot
Seventeen (17) and Sixteen (16) and being on the easterly right of way
line of ``C'' Street; thence westerly on a course bearing South eighty-
eight degrees thirty minutes fifty-one seconds West (S 88[deg] 30[min]
51[sec] W) for a distance of two hundred fifty-three and twenty-four
hundredths (253.24) feet to a steel pin driven into the ground; said
pin being known hereafter as the point of beginning of the herein
described parcel of land; thence westerly on a course bearing North
fifty-nine degrees twenty-six minutes twenty-three seconds West (N
59[deg] 26[min] 23[sec] W) for a distance of one hundred fifty and zero
hundredths (150.00) feet to a steel pin driven into the ground; thence
southerly on a course bearing South thirty degrees thirty-three minutes
thirty-seven seconds West (S 30[deg] 33[min] 37[sec] W) for a distance
of two hundred eleven and zero hundredths (211.00) feet to a steel pin
driven into the ground; thence easterly on a course bearing South
fifty-nine degrees twenty-six minutes twenty-three seconds East (S
59[deg] 26[min] 23[sec] E) for a distance of one hundred fifty and zero
hundredths (150.00) feet to a steel pin driven into the ground; thence
northerly on a course bearing North thirty degrees thirty-three minutes
thirtyseven seconds East (N 30[deg] 33[min] 37[sec] E) for a distance
of two hundred eleven and zero hundredths (211.00) feet to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on August 26, 2010.
LaVerne F. Reid,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-22872 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M