STRONGER STRONGER State State Review Review Process Process Presentation to the EPA Presentation to the EPA May 2005 May 2005 Lori Wrotenbery Lori Wrotenbery 1980 RCRA Amendments 1980 RCRA Amendments  EPA study ( 1986 EPA study ( 1986 87)

87)

 EPA regulatory determination ( 1988)

EPA regulatory determination ( 1988)

 Found state and federal regulation to be Found state and federal regulation to be generally adequate generally adequate  Recognized regulatory gaps and inadequate Recognized regulatory gaps and inadequate enforcement enforcement  Developed a three Developed a three pronged approach:

pronged approach:

 Improve existing programs under RCRA, Safe Improve existing programs under RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Water Act Drinking Water Act, and Clean Water Act  Work with states to improve their programs Work with states to improve their programs  Work with Congress on any additional Work with Congress on any additional legislation that might be needed legislation that might be needed State Review Process State Review Process  1989 1989  IOGCC Council on Regulatory Needs IOGCC Council on Regulatory Needs  1990 1990  Published first Guidelines and began Published first Guidelines and began state reviews state reviews  State State by by state reviews of regulatory programs state reviews of regulatory programs against the published Guidelines against the published Guidelines  Conducted by multi Conducted by multi interest stakeholder teams interest stakeholder teams  Result in written report of findings and Result in written report of findings and recommendations recommendations  30 reviews of 19 state programs conducted to 30 reviews of 19 state programs conducted to date date Purposes of State Reviews Purposes of State Reviews  To evaluate state oil and gas programs against To evaluate state oil and gas programs against published Guidelines published Guidelines  To measure To measure the effectiveness of program the effectiveness of program implementation implementation  To document program strengths To document program strengths  To identify and recommend areas for state program To identify and recommend areas for state program improvement improvement  To share new or innovative program elements To share new or innovative program elements  To increase the understanding of the regulatory To increase the understanding of the regulatory process by all stakeholders process by all stakeholders  To promote consistency among state programs,

To promote consistency among state programs,

while allowing flexibility to address unique while allowing flexibility to address unique circumstances circumstances 2000 Guidelines 2000 Guidelines Section 1 Section 1

    Introduction Introduction Section 2.

Section 2.     ... Scope of the Guidelines Criteria ... Scope of the Guidelines Criteria Section 3 Section 3

    General Criteria General Criteria Section 4 Section 4

    Administrative Criteria Administrative Criteria Section 5 Section 5

    Technical Criteria Technical Criteria Section 6 Section 6

    Abandoned Sites Abandoned Sites Section 7 Section 7

    NORM NORM Section 8 Section 8

    Performance Measures Performance Measures Section 9 Section 9

    Recommendation for Future Work Recommendation for Future Work 2005 Guidelines Revisions 2005 Guidelines Revisions  Updating and Clarification Updating and Clarification  Enhanced Oilfield Spill Risk Management Enhanced Oilfield Spill Risk Management  Enhanced Program Performance Enhanced Program Performance Measurement Measurement  Storm Water Management Storm Water Management Stormwater Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines  New section of Guidelines New section of Guidelines  Drafted by stakeholder team with state,

Drafted by stakeholder team with state,

industry, and public interest participation industry, and public interest participation  State programs may be rule State programs may be rule based or rely on based or rely on operator operator specific plans specific plans  STRONGER may place links to state and other STRONGER may place links to state and other BMPs on its website as a resource BMPs on its website as a resource Guidelines Revision Guidelines Revision Timetable Timetable  Draft Guidelines published May 1, 2005 Draft Guidelines published May 1, 2005  Comments requested by June 17, 2005 Comments requested by June 17, 2005  Revised draft to be published by August Revised draft to be published by August  Review by IOGCC in September Review by IOGCC in September  Implementation of new Guidelines beginning in Implementation of new Guidelines beginning in 2006 2006 State Review Process State Review Process Strengths Strengths  Guidelines standards established by stakeholders Guidelines standards established by stakeholders  Guidelines recognize regional differences Guidelines recognize regional differences  Focus on program performance Focus on program performance  Reviews performed by multiple stakeholder teams Reviews performed by multiple stakeholder teams  Reviews document program strengths and Reviews document program strengths and opportunities for improvement opportunities for improvement  Follow Follow up reviews are conducted up reviews are conducted  Process can fill regulatory gaps Process can fill regulatory gaps  Process is a model for evaluation of other Process is a model for evaluation of other environmental regulatory programs environmental regulatory programs


68863 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2002 / Notices in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 20, 2002. No comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 36 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; train personnel 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: Owners/ Operators of Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants. Estimated Number of Respondents: 165. Frequency of Response: semiannual for all, every other year for excess emission report. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,531. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $ 318,000. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR Number 0660.08 and OMB Control Number 2060   0107 in any correspondence.

Dated: November 4, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   28849 Filed 11   2   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7407   9]

Proposed Settlement Agreement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113( g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7413( g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement in Utility Air Regulatory Group ( UARG) v. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), No. 02   1023 and consolidated cases ( Nos. 02   1026, 02   1027, 02   1028, 02   1088)( D. C. Circuit). These consolidated cases concern a November 15, 2001 Federal Register notice entitled Recent Posting of Agency Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Applicability and Monitoring for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the Applicability Index ( ADI) Database System, ( 66 FR 57453) and a January 10, 2002 Federal Register notice entitled Recent Posting to the Applicability Determination Index ( ADI) Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, ( 67 FR 1295). DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by December 13, 2002. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Diane E. McConkey, Air and Radiation Law Office ( 2344A), Office of General Counsel, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. A copy of the proposed settlement agreement is available from Phyllis J. Cochran, ( 202) 564   7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From time to time EPA publishes in the Federal Register notices of recent postings to the Applicability Determination Index Database System ( ADI Posting Notices), similar to the two notices at issue in these petitions for review. The following entities filed petitions for review of one or both of the ADI Posting Notices described above: Utility Air Regulatory Group ( UARG), January 11, 2002 ( November 15, 2001 notice) and March 11, 2002 ( January 10, 2002 notice); Clean Air Implementation Project ( CAIP), January 14, 2002 ( November 15, 2001 notice); American Chemistry Council ( ACC), January 14, 2002 ( November 15, 2001 notice); National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Regulatory Project ( NEDA/ CARP), January 14, 2002 ( November 15, 2001 and January 10, 2002 notices). UARG, CAIP, ACC, NEDA/ CARP, and EPA have now reached initial agreement on a settlement of the consolidated cases which could lead to the voluntary dismissal of the petitions for review. The settlement requires the EPA Administrator to include specific language in the first ADI Posting Notice signed after the settlement agreement is final and effective. For a period of thirty ( 30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

Dated: November 4, 2002. Lisa K. Friedman, Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law Office. [ FR Doc. 02   28843 Filed 11   12   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0265; FRL   7280   8]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Cancellation of Public Meetings AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of October 10, 2002 ( 67 FR 63084) ( FRL   7276   4), EPA announced a November 21, 2002, pre meeting teleconference and a December 3   5, 2002, face to face meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel ( FIFRA SAP) to consider and review studies on water disinfection and softening as related to the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) drinking water exposure assessments. The meetings have been cancelled because of logistical problems. A new set of meetings will be announced in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Lewis, Designated Federal Official ( DFO), Office of Science Coordination VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 21 Nov 12, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13NON1. SGM 13NON1 68864 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2002 / Notices and Policy ( 7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 202) 564   8450; fax number: ( 202) 564   8382; email address: lewis. paul@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), FIFRA, and FQPA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0265. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: November 5, 2002. Joseph J. Merenda, Jr., Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.

[ FR Doc. 02   28841 Filed 11   12   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0279; FRL   7277   2]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3( c)( 4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), as amended. DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP   2002   0279, must be received on or before December 13, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6224; e mail address: miller. joanne@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS code 111)   Animal production ( NAICS code 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS code 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in unit II of this notice. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0279. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 21 Nov 12, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13NON1. SGM 13NON1


 July 12, 2004 Mr. Donald S. Welsh Regional Administrator EPA Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 2029 Dear Mr. Welsh:

Pursuant to Section 181( a) ( 4) of the Clean Air Act and on behalf of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am hereby submitting a formal petition for consideration to EPA Region III. The purpose of this petition is request that EPA reclassify the Richmond area from a moderate to marginal nonattainment area under the 8 hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS). Such a request is allowed by the Act if the design value in an area is within five percent ( 5%) of the lower classification level. Specifically, in the case of the Richmond area, the current design value is 94 parts per billion which is within the allowed 5% range for reclassification consideration.

Enclosed is a detailed technical analysis document developed to support this petition and request. This document contains analyses of monitoring, modeling, and emissions data for the Richmond area. In summary, these analyses support the reclassification request in that:

  Monitoring data and trends in the area are mainly indicative of a marginal ozone nonattainment area.   Various DEQ and EPA modeling exercises indicate that the area is likely to attain the 8 hour ozone as soon as 2007.   An emissions analysis indicates that substantial emission reductions will be achieved in the area by 2007.

We believe that this document presents a compelling case to support the reclassification of the Richmond area to the lower marginal nonattainment classification. Donald S. Welsh July 12, 2004 page two, Virginia Ozone Reclassification Letter Thank you for the opportunity submit this petition and for your consideration of this request. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this petition and supporting information.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Burnley Enclosure cc: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Judith Katz John M. Daniel, Jr.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73783-73784]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 732, 734, 736, 740, 742, 744, 746, 748, 758, 770, 772,
and 774

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-XC101

Procedures for Access to the Public Briefing on Additional Export
Controls on Certain Advanced Computing and Supercomputing Items; and
Semiconductor Manufacturing Items

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Procedures for accessing a public briefing on regulatory
actions.

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

SUMMARY: On October 25, 2023, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
is publishing in the Federal Register two interim final rules,
``Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced
Computing Items; Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Updates and
Corrections'' and ``Export Controls on Semiconductor Manufacturing
Items,'' which were both filed for public inspection at the Federal
Register on October 18, 2023. BIS published an associated final rule,
``Entity List Additions,'' in the Federal Register on October 19, 2023.
On November 6, 2023, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration Thea
D. Rozman Kendler will conduct a public briefing on these two interim
final rules and one final rule. This announcement provides details on
the procedures for participating in the public briefing.

DATES:
    Public briefing: The public briefing call will be held on November
6, 2023. The public briefing call will begin at 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight
(EDT) local time and conclude at 5 p.m. EDT. The registration link for
attending this event will be posted no later than October 30, 2023.
    Deadline for submitting questions for the public briefing:
Questions for the briefing must be received no later than November 1,
2023.

ADDRESSES: The registration link for attending this event will be
posted on the BIS website at https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/about-bis/newsroom/2082. This briefing will be virtual; no in-person
attendance is available.
    Submitting questions: Questions for BIS for the public briefing may
be submitted in writing to [email protected] no later
than November 1, 2023. Please tag the questions submitted by adding
``Public Briefing on AC/S and SME IFRs,'' along with a brief
description of the question, e.g., 744.23, AI, or SME, in the subject
line.
    Recording: Within 7 business days after this public briefing is
completed, BIS will add a link to a recording, including captioning, of
the public briefing to make the recording accessible to people with
disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of
Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected]. For emails, include ``Public
Briefing on AC/S and SME IFRs'' in the subject line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 7, 2022, BIS released the interim final rule (IFR)
``Implementation of Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced
Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items; Supercomputer and
Semiconductor End Use; Entity List Modification'' (October 7 IFR) (87
FR 62186), which amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to
implement controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs),
computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor
manufacturing items, and to make other EAR changes to implement
appropriate related controls, including on certain ``U.S. person''
activities.
    In October 2023, BIS took further regulatory actions to address the
national security and foreign policy concerns identified in the October
7 IFR. Specifically, on October 25, 2023, BIS is publishing in the
Federal Register two interim final rules, ``Implementation of
Additional Export Controls: Certain Advanced Computing Items;
Supercomputer and Semiconductor End Use; Updates and Corrections'' and
``Export Controls on Semiconductor Manufacturing Items,'' which were
both filed for public inspection at the Federal Register on October 18,
2023. BIS published an

associated final rule, ``Entity List Additions,'' in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2023 (88 FR 71991).
    On November 6, 2023, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration
Thea D. Rozman Kendler will conduct a public briefing on these two
interim final rules and one final rule. This announcement provides
details on the procedures for attending the public briefing call. This
public briefing call is part of the BIS outreach efforts that BIS will
be conducting for these recent regulatory actions.

Scope of the Briefing and Process for Submitting Questions

    The briefing conducted by Assistant Secretary Kendler will address
important aspects of the two interim final rules and one final rule.
    Note that no public comments will be accepted during the public
briefing, which will be held virtually via audio only. Questions for
BIS may be submitted in writing to [email protected] no
later than November 1, 2023. Please tag the questions submitted by
adding ``Public Briefing on AC/S and SME IFRs,'' along with a brief
description of the question, e.g., 744.23, AI, or SME, in the subject
line. Such questions will be addressed as time and subject matter
permit. Questions that have general applicability may be addressed in
frequently asked questions (FAQs) that BIS is developing for these two
interim final rules. Questions or comments received for the public
briefing will not be considered public comments on the two interim
final rules. See the process in the next paragraph for how to submit
comments on the two interim final rules.

Process for Submitting Comments on the Two Interim Final Rules

    The two interim final rules: ``Implementation of Additional Export
Controls: Certain Advanced Computing Items; Supercomputer and
Semiconductor End Use; Updates and Corrections'' and ``Export Controls
on Semiconductor Manufacturing Items,'' will be open for a sixty-day
public comment period. Comments must be received by BIS no later than
December 18, 2023. See the ADDRESSES section of the respective interim
final rules for instructions on submitting written comments. BIS
encourages interested parties to review the two interim final rules and
provide any comments they believe may be warranted.

Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-23810 Filed 10-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74658]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP13-237-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Technical Conference

    The Commission's November 29, 2012 Order in the above-captioned
proceeding \1\ directed that a technical conference be held to address
issues raised by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP's proposed revisions to
its Applicable Shrinkage Adjustment percentages and adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 141 FERC ]61,172 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Tuesday,
January 15, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., in a room to be designated at the
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons and staff are permitted to attend. For
further information please contact David Maranville at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30264 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comments on Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART General comments:

1. EPA should consider adding language to the preamble to indicate what has been done to help ensure consistency between this rulemaking and other rulemakings that involve some of the same pollutant( s). A given source might, for example, be planning to buy SO2 allowances to comply with one regulation only to find that the instant rulemaking would require the installation of control technology to address the same emissions.

2. The comment period should be lengthened to at least 60 days.

3. A table of contents should be added to assist the potential commenters in making reference to sections of the proposed rulemaking. The notation for headings and subheadings should be revised to allow easier identification of sections.

Specific comments:

p. 39 Agree with EPA's interpretation of " fossil fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTU/ hr heat input."

p. 40 Agree with EPA's interpretation of " fossil fuel."

p. 44 Agree with EPA's proposal not to include ammonia among pollutants to be addressed.

p. 47 Agree with EPA's request for comment on VOC control.

p. 50 Agree with EPA's proposal to give States the flexibility to identify de minimis levels of pollutants at BART eligible facilities.

p. 54 Would EPA provide or develop a standard modeling protocol for use of CALPUFF for distance greater than 250 km?

p. 57 The threshold level for a " just noticeable change" is proposed to be 5%. As stated on page 58, " this level would be calculated by measuring the air quality screening modeling results for an individual source against natural visibility conditions". First, what guidance is provided for the determination of " natural visibility conditions" are for a particular area? Second, why use this baseline to determine the degree of impairment? Third, how will transported pollution that could impact visibility conditions, especially in establishing the baseline " natural visibility conditions" be addressed? ( This should be addressed in " Section 4, Step 4: For a BART engineering analysis, what impacts must I calculate and report? What methods does EPA recommend for the impacts analysis", page 194.) p. 69 EPA doesn't really say what the cutoff might be between technologies that are to be considered " cost effective" and those considered otherwise. Is this to be left up to the States?

p. 72 This statement is unclear: " Also, a few sources may emit higher than acceptable levels of Nox [ sic] even after consideration of screening levels."

p. 73 In the preamble, EPA discusses the " nonair quality" impacts but doesn't discuss the " energy" impacts as included in Section 169A( g)( 7)( 2). Why not include in the preamble some of the discussion contained in the draft Guidelines at 211 et seq.?

p. 75 There is a discussion of the potential for BART control of a visibility related pollutant to interfere with the control of mercury. The " air quality and nonair quality related environmental concerns" mentioned here would seem to come into play when a BART eligible source emits more than two visibility related pollutants in greater than de minimis amounts. Would there be any opportunity for States to consider the costs and benefits of co control with various technologies or combinations of technologies? For example, once a sourcespecific BART determination is made for two regulated pollutants, and if the result is two different BART technologies that don't work well together, could a State then substitute one technology or combination of technologies that achieved at least the same emissions reductions for each pollutant at a lower cost?

p. 76 The text blurs the difference between the " cost of control" and the " cost of compliance." Shouldn't the costs of compliance be those costs associated with achieving the required level of visibility impairment reduction, i. e., compliance?

p. 77 SO2 controls for utility boilers.

Why does EPA believe there is a need to establish a " default" percentage control level for 750 MW and greater plants? There is apparently nothing like this for any other source category, and the statutory requirement that the applicable emission limitations " be determined pursuant to [ EPA] guidelines" could be satisfied without the default level, regardless of what " Congress understood 25 years ago." EPA even mentions ( p. 84) that many utility industry comments were critical of the similar provision in the 2001 regulation as a Federal mandate that would reduce State flexibility. This concern regarding flexibility does not seem to have been addressed in the instant rulemaking. If the case for 95 percent reduction using FGD is really so airtight, why wouldn't States end up selecting this as BART anyway without the default provision?

Also, EPA uses the terms " default level" and " presumptive level," but does say, as it does for 250 750 MW plants whether these levels would be " rebuttable." Would they be? If not, why not? Why should there be the restriction stated in footnote 29? Why not follow the procedures that would be used for other categories of sources and let States evaluate various configurations of scrubbers?

It is also mentioned ( p. 79) that some comments " recommended that the presumptive level be expressed as a performance level." It is doubtful that they meant for the performance level to be added to a requirement for 95 percent control. Why does EPA believe ( p. 85) there a need for both? What does accounting " for the difference between coal with higher, as opposed to lower, sulfur content" have to do with EPA's rationale? If there is to be a default percentage reduction requirement, why wouldn't this be less than 95 percent where BART eligible sources have already limited their sulfur dioxide emissions by using lower sulfur coal?

Why is there a need for the rebuttable presumption for 250 750 MW plants ( p. 80)?

Why is there a need to propose the same control level for 250 MW boilers at 750 MW and above plants as for 250 MW boilers at smaller plants ( p. 88)? Can't States make a determination on this issue themselves?

p. 89 NOx control for utility boilers.

Why does EPA believe there is a need to require that sources using SCR on a seasonal basis operate SCR year round? EPA provides no rationale for this based on expected environmental impacts. Why not determine BART for NOx control in the usual way?

Similarly, why does EPA propose ( p. 94) that States for " all other power plants subject to BART   , as a general matter, " require these sources to achieve a control level of 0.2 lbs/ MMBtu?" Does this statement refer only to plants subject to BART for NOx or for any of the pollutants proposed to be regulated under the instant rule?" Is it correct that EPA intends this " general matter" requirement to apply to " plants," as stated, or to individual boilers?

p. 96 Consideration of visibility impacts.

There is no rationale given for choosing the running of CALPUFF and tabulating the results " for the average of the 20% worst modeled days at each receptor" as the sole proposed option. Why not propose two options and ask for comment: ( 1) running CALPUFF, or ( 2) the alternative option " of using the hourly modeled impacts from CALPUFF and assessing the improvement in visibility based on the number of hours above a visibility threshold for the pre and post control emission rates." What is meant by " each receptor?" It makes sense to assess impacts for the entirety of a given Class I area, but are there already pre defined receptor coordinates that together cover the entire area?

If the alternative method is used, how should States assess a given number of hours above a visibility threshold?

p. 99 Trading program Agree with providing the option of trading programs including non BART sources.

As mentioned on p. 100, the WRAP emissions trading program is a " backstop" program. Under the re proposal, would any emissions trading programs necessarily be backstop programs?

Would the requirement that a trading program " achieve greater reasonable progress" essentially require a State wanting to participate in a trading program to first complete BART determinations for all BART eligible sources individually or collectively?


[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 502-504]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-157]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61259; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Related to the Simple Auction Liaison (SAL)

December 30, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On May 4, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 6.13A to
revise the Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'')/Lead Market-Maker
(``LMM'') participation entitlement formula that is applicable to
Simple Auction Liaison (``SAL'') executions in Hybrid 3.0 classes on a
one-year pilot basis. On November 13, 2009, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change, which replaced the original filing in its
entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 24, 2009.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61024 (November 18,
2009), 74 FR 61395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    CBOE Rule 6.13A governs the operation of the Exchange's SAL system.
SAL is a feature within CBOE's Hybrid System that auctions marketable
orders for price improvement over the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''). For Hybrid 3.0 Classes in which SAL is activated,\4\ the
Exchange determines, on a class-by-class basis, which electronic
matching algorithm from CBOE Rule 6.45B shall apply to SAL executions
(e.g., pro-rata, price-time, UMA priority with public customer,
participation entitlement and/or market turner priority overlays).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, SPX (options on the S&P 500 Index) is the only
Hybrid 3.0 class. Telephone call between Angelo Evangelou, Assistant
General Counsel, CBOE, and Sara Hawkins, Special Counsel, Division
of Trading and Markets, Commission, on December 14, 2009.
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.13A, Interpretation .04(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also may establish, on a class-by-class basis, a DPM/
LMM participation entitlement that is applicable only to SAL
executions.\6\ Pursuant to CBOE Rules 8.15B and 8.87, the participation
entitlement generally is 50% when there is one other Market-Maker also
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, 40% when there are two
Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, and
30% when there are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best
bid/offer on the Exchange. In addition, the participation entitlement
must be in compliance with Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2).\7\ In relevant part,
Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2) provides that the DPM or LMM may not be allocated a
total quantity greater than the quantity that it is quoting (including
orders not part of quotes) at that price.\8\ Further, if pro-rata
priority is in effect and the DPM or LMM's allocation of an order
pursuant to its participation entitlement is greater than its
percentage share of quotes/orders at the best price at the time that
the participation

entitlement is granted (the ``pro-rata share''), the DPM or LMM shall
not receive any further allocation of that order.\9\ The rule also
provides that the participation entitlement shall not be in effect
unless public customer priority is in effect in a priority sequence
ahead of the participation entitlement and then the participation
entitlement shall only apply to any remaining balance.\10\ In addition,
responses to SAL auctions are capped to the size of the Agency Order
for allocation purposes pursuant to Rule 6.13A.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See CBOE Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2)(B).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See CBOE Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2)(D). CBOE Rule 6.45B(a)(i)(2)
also provides that, to be entitled to their participation
entitlement, the DPM/LMM's order and/or quote must be at the best
price on the Exchange. For purposes of SAL executions, the Exchange
noted that it interprets this to mean that the DPM/LMM must be at
the best price at both the start and the conclusion of the SAL
auction.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, for an example of an allocation
of a SAL order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now proposing to modify the DPM/LMM entitlement
when the pro-rata algorithm is in effect for SAL in selected Hybrid 3.0
classes as part of a pilot program that will operate on a one-year
basis. For such pro-rata classes, after all public customer orders in
the book at the best bid/offer and the DPM/LMM participation
entitlement have been satisfied, the DPM/LMM shall be eligible to
participate in any remaining balance on a pro-rata basis (regardless of
whether its participation entitlement is greater than its pro-rata
share).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, for an example of an allocation
of a SAL order under the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the pilot program, on a quarterly basis the Exchange
will evaluate the number of SAL executions in each pilot class where
the DPM/LMM participation entitlement was applied and the allocation
was greater than what it would have been under the pre-pilot allocation
algorithm. The Exchange will reduce the DPM/LMM participation
entitlement for the class if the number of SAL executions that exceeded
the benchmark is more than 1% of the total number of SAL executions in
the class evaluated during the quarter. This evaluation will be based
on a random sampling of three days for each month in each quarter. The
``benchmark'' will be 60% where there is one Market-Maker also quoting
at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; 40% where there are two Market-
Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and 40%
where there are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best
bid/offer on the Exchange. The benchmark percentages, which in some
instances are greater than CBOE's DPM/LMM participation entitlement
percentages contained in Rules 8.15B and 8.87, are based on the market-
maker participation entitlement percentages that are available on other
options exchanges.\13\ During the pilot, the Exchange will submit a
quarterly report containing certain data related to this evaluation to
the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange Rule
7.13.01(b) (provides a 60% participation right if there is only one
other Professional Order or market maker quotation at the best
price) and NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A)(i) (provides a 40%
participation right regardless of the number of other market
participants at the best price).
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, for further detail on the data to
be provided in the reports submitted to the Commission. Such data
will be provided by CBOE on a confidential basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\15\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has closely scrutinized proposals which would
provide participation entitlements to specialists or market makers or
would increase any such existing entitlements.\17\ The Commission has
recognized that such entitlements to specialists, market makers, or
other members that ``lock up'' a certain portion of each affected order
reduce the number of contracts for which other members and market
participants can compete.\18\ Eventually, if particular exchange
members ``lock up'' a large share of customer orders, competing members
would have less incentive to compete by offering better prices on an
exchange and competition could diminish. As a result, the disseminated
quotations, and the other trading interest available on a market, could
deteriorate, ultimately harming investors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13,
2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (establishing trading rules for
the Boston Options Exchange Facility) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 42455 (February 24, 2000), 65 FR 11388, 11395 (March 2,
2000) (order approving the registration of the International
Securities Exchange LLC as a national securities exchange).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, CBOE's proposal will permit DPMs and LMMs to execute a
larger share of a SAL order than under the current allocation
algorithm, as DPMs and LMMs will now be permitted to receive their DPM/
LMM participation entitlement as well as a pro-rata share of the
remaining balance on an order (after all public customer orders in the
book at the best bid/offer and the DPM/LMM participation entitlement
have been satisfied). However, the Commission believes that any
potential concerns regarding the increased allocation to DPMs/LMMs, as
discussed above, are mitigated by the terms and conditions of the pilot
program. Specifically, during the pilot program, the Exchange will be
required to closely monitor a random sampling of the SAL executions and
evaluate executions in which the DPM/LMM allocation is greater than
what it would have been under the previous allocation algorithm. These
SAL executions will be evaluated against a ``benchmark'' that is based
on market-maker participation entitlement percentages that have been
approved by the Commission for other options exchanges.\20\ If the
number of SAL executions that exceeds the benchmark amounts to more
than 1% of the total number of SAL executions in the class evaluated
during the quarter, the Exchange must reduce the DPM/LMM participation
entitlement for that class. As such, the Commission believes that the
proposal will permit only DPM/LMM allocations that are generally
consistent with the level of participation entitlement that the
Commission has previously approved for other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 13. Specifically, the ``benchmark'' will be
60% where there is one Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/
offer on the Exchange; 40% where there are two Market-Makers also
quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and 40% where there
are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange will submit quarterly reports to the
Commission providing data on SAL executions evaluated during the
relevant time period. In evaluating the pilot program, the Commission
will consider, among other things, how often the allocation percentage
exceeds the benchmark and by what amount. The Commission will closely
scrutinize the pilot program to ensure that the DPM/LMM allocations
under the proposed rule change are

generally in line with the maximum participation entitlement
percentages that the Commission has previously approved.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-025), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31345 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29861-29863]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13618]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

(Release No. 34-83482; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-046)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4702

June 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 8, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 amend Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) so that
Participants can choose to have their Limit On Close Orders rejected if
subject to being re-priced when entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On July 13, 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
enhance the Nasdaq Closing Cross by permitting Participants to submit
Limit On Close (``LOC'') Orders until immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET
subject to certain conditions, including that such LOC Orders would be
re-priced in certain situations.\3\ This rule change was approved by
the Commission on September 8, 2017.\4\ The Exchange now proposes to
amend Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) so that Participants can choose to have their
Limit On Close Orders rejected if subject to being re-priced when
entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81188 (July 21,
2017), 82 FR 35014 (July 27, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-061).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81556 (September 8,
2017), 82 FR 43264 (September 14, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-061)
(Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A LOC Order is an Order Type entered with a price that may be
executed only in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, and only if the price
determined by the Nasdaq Closing Cross is equal to or better than the
price at which the LOC Order was entered.\5\ Subject to the
qualifications provided below, LOC Orders may be entered, cancelled,
and/or modified between 4 a.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:50 p.m.
ET. Between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET, an LOC
Order may be entered provided that there is a First Reference Price.\6\
Currently, an LOC Order entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately
prior to 3:55 p.m. ET will be accepted at its limit price, unless its
limit price is higher (lower) than the First Reference Price for an LOC
Order to buy (sell), in which case the LOC Order will be re-priced to
the First Reference Price.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 4702(b)(12).
    \6\ ``First Reference Price'' is the Current Reference Price in
the first Order Imbalance Indicator disseminated at or after 3:50
p.m. ET. See Rule 4754(a)(9). During this time period an LOC Order
can also be cancelled but not modified, and only if the Participant
requests that Nasdaq correct a legitimate error in the Order (e.g.,
Side, Size, Symbol, or Price, or duplication of an Order).
    \7\ If the First Reference Price is not at a permissible minimum
increment, the First Reference Price will be rounded (i) to the
nearest permitted minimum increment (with midpoint prices being
rounded up) if there is no imbalance, (ii) up if there is a buy
imbalance, or (iii) down if there is a sell imbalance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to permit Participants to choose to have
LOC Orders rejected if subject to being re-priced when entered between
3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET. While the Exchange
believes that accepting LOC Orders after the regular 3:50 p.m. ET
cutoff enhances price discovery, in order to promote price stability
during the Nasdaq Closing Cross, the Exchange re-prices these LOC
Orders if the First Reference price is less aggressive than the Order's
limit price. Nevertheless, certain Participants may prefer not to have
LOC Orders re-priced. A re-priced LOC Order would only have priority at
the less aggressive First Reference Price, and as a result would be
less likely to receive an execution in the Nasdaq Closing Cross than if
it had been accepted at its stated limit price. For example, if the
First Reference Price in ABC is $10, an LOC Order to buy entered at
3:52 with a stated limit price of $12 would be accepted at $10 today.
If the Nasdaq Closing Cross is subsequently executed at a price of $11,
the LOC Order would not participate even though its stated limit price
indicates a willingness to pay up to $12. Some Participants would
therefore prefer to have this LOC Order rejected at the outset to avoid
this possibility when the Nasdaq Closing Cross is ultimately executed.
Giving the option to have those LOC Orders rejected on entry rather
than re-priced will give Participants more flexibility with respect to
how such LOC Orders are handled. Participants that would prefer that
LOC Orders be accepted to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross can
continue to enter these LOC Orders subject to the current re-pricing
logic, which will be the default configuration for Participants that
have not chosen to have these LOC Orders rejected instead.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to introduce the change described in this
proposed rule change in Q3 or Q4 2018. The Exchange will announce the
implementation date of this change in an Equity Trader Alert issued to
Participants prior to implementing the change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will give
Participants more flexibility with respect to how their LOC Orders are
handled, to the benefit of Participants and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange permits Participants to submit LOC Orders
between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET, the
Exchange re-prices these LOC Orders to the First Reference Price if the
First Reference price is less aggressive than the Order's limit price.
As mentioned in the purpose section of this proposed rule change, this
re-pricing is done to promote stability in the Nasdaq Closing Cross
price. However, certain Participants may prefer not to have LOC Orders
re-priced, and instead would like to have these LOC Orders rejected on
entry instead. The Exchange therefore proposes to facilitate this by
giving Participants the choice to have LOC Orders handled in this
manner. The Exchange believes that this is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as it allows
Participants to have more flexibility in how they may achieve their
trading goals. Specifically, Participants that choose to have an LOC
Order rejected instead of re-priced could thereafter execute their
trading interest in a different manner, such as by entering it onto the
continuous book, rather than waiting for an uncertain execution in the
Nasdaq Closing Cross where the LOC Order may have a lower priority at
the re-priced price. Participants that consume and house the First
Reference Price in their systems can already do this themselves today
by checking if an LOC Order would be subject to re-pricing (i.e.,
because the limit price is more aggressive than the First Reference
Price disseminated by the Exchange) prior to entering this interest on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes, however, that many Participants
would benefit from the Exchange performing this determination for them,
and is therefore proposing to do so.

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. The proposed functionality
would be available to all Participants of the Exchange, who will now
have the flexibility to choose to have LOC Orders

rejected on entry in situations where those LOC Orders would otherwise
be re-priced to the First Reference Price. Although Participants could
implement this logic themselves, implementing it on the Exchange will
ensure that it is readily available to all Participants. Furthermore,
other exchanges are free to offer similar functionality if they so
desire.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-046 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-NASDAQ-2018-046. 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-NASDAQ-2018-046 and should be submitted
on or before July 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13618 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4724-4726]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01665]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76966; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend a
Quote Spread Parameter Provision

January 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 14, 2016, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(b) respecting
U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options (``FCO'') quote spread
parameters, also known as bid/ask differentials, as described further
below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

NASDAQ OMX PHLX Rules

* * * * *

Rule 1014. Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and
Registered Options Traders

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) In Classes of Option Contracts to Which Assigned--Affirmative
Obligations. With respect to classes of option contracts to which his
assignment extends, a Specialist and an ROT, whenever the ROT (except
an RSQT) enters the trading crowd in other than a floor brokerage
capacity or is called upon by an Options Exchange Official or a Floor
Broker, to make a market, are expected to engage, to a reasonable
degree under the existing circumstances, in dealing for his own account
when there exists, or it is reasonably anticipated that there will
exist, a lack of price continuity, a temporary disparity between the
supply of and demand for a particular option contract, or a temporary
distortion of the price relationships between option contracts of the
same class. Without limiting the foregoing, a Specialist and an ROT is
expected to perform the following activities in the course of
maintaining a fair and orderly market:
    (i) Options on Equities (including Exchange-Traded Fund Shares),
Index Options, and U.S. dollar-settled Foreign Currency Options.
    (A)(1) Quote Spread Parameters (Bid/Ask Differentials)--
    (a) Options on equities and index options bidding and/or offering
so as to create differences of no more than $.25 between the bid and
the offer for each option contract for which the prevailing bid is less
than $2; no more than $.40 where the prevailing bid is $2 or more but
less than $5; no more than $.50 where the prevailing bid is $5 or more
but less than $10; no more than $.80 where the prevailing bid is $10 or
more but less than $20; and no more than $1 where the prevailing bid is
$20 or more, provided that, in the case of equity options, the bid/ask
differentials stated above shall not apply to in-the-money series where
the market for the underlying security is wider than the differentials
set forth above. For such series, the bid/ask differentials may be as
wide as the quotation for the underlying security on the primary
market, or its decimal equivalent rounded up to the nearest minimum
increment. The Exchange may establish differences other than the above
for one or more series or classes of options.
    (b) Options on U.S. dollar-settled FCO. With respect to all U.S.
dollar-settled FCO bidding and/or offering so as to create differences
of no more than $.25 between the bid and the offer for each option
contract for which the

prevailing bid is less than $2.00; no more than $.40 where the
prevailing bid is $2.00 or more but less than $5.00; no more than $.50
where the prevailing bid is $5.00 or more but less than $10.00; no more
than $.80 where the prevailing bid is $10.00 or more but less than
$20.00; and no more than $1.00 where the prevailing bid is $20.00 or
more. The Exchange may establish differences other than the above for
one or more series or classes of options.
    (2) No change.
    (d)-(g) No change.
* * *Commentary: ------------
    .01-.19 No change.
* * * * *

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 proposal is to update and clarify the quote
spread parameters applicable to FCOs. Quote spread parameters establish
the maximum permissible width between the bid and the offer in a
particular option series. Quote spreads apply to quotes, not orders,
and are thus only applicable to the quoting participants who are
required to submit two-sided quotes. This includes specialists and the
various types of Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') enumerated in
Rule 1014(b).
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(b) respecting FCOs to parallel the following language
in Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(1)(a) respecting equity and index options: the
Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more
series or classes of options. The Exchange inadvertently did not add
this language respecting FCOs, even though the ability to establish
different quote spread parameters is contemplated in Options Floor
Procedure Advice (``Advice'') F-6,\3\ Option Quote Parameters. Advice
F-6 provides that relief from the established bid/ask differentials may
be granted upon the receipt of an approval of an Options Exchange
Official.\4\ This relief is clearly available for FCOs under Advice F-6
based on the placement of the language. The Exchange believes that,
although the relief language in Advice F-6 implies (but does not
expressly require) that a request must be made to the Exchange, the
result of any such relief would be to establish a different quote
spread parameter.\5\ If relief is granted, such relief applies to all
market participants, regardless of whether a request was specifically
made or whether it was made by one particular market participant. The
Exchange certainly would not require that such relief be doled out
participant-by-participant. The Exchange commonly announces such relief
by issuing an Options Regulatory Alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options floor procedures advices generally correspond to
Exchange rules and comprise the Exchange's minor rule violation plan
establishing preset fines for certain violations pursuant to Rule
19d-1(c) under the Act. 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c).
    \4\ An Options Exchange Official is an Exchange staff member or
contract employee designated as such by the Chief Regulatory
Officer. See Rule 1(w).
    \5\ Some of the circumstances that may result in wider quote
spread parameters include volatility in the underlying, recent news
affecting the underlying and heavy volume in the underlying or the
overlying option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that adopting the proposed
language to expressly permit different bid/ask differentials is clearer
and parallels the language applicable to other options products, all of
which trade on the same trading floor and through the same trading
system. There is no reason why different quote spread parameters should
be available to equity and index options and not FCOs, much like the
relief provision in Advice F-6 applies to all options, including FCOs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the
public interest by making it clear that respecting FCOs, just like all
other options, different quote spread parameters can be established by
the Exchange to address specific requests as well as general market
events. This should promote just and equitable principles of trade and
protect investors by having quote spread parameters reflect potential
volatility and activity in the underlying currency, and thereby
encourage robust market making in FCOs that reflects current market
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. With respect to intra-market
competition, the proposed language will apply to all quoting market
participants equally. With respect to inter-market competition, market
participants who disagree with the quote spread parameters that the
Exchange establishes may choose to trade FCOs on another exchange.

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

    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 \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \9\ 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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-06 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-Phlx-2016-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-06 and should be
submitted on or before February 17, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01665 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P