[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58230-58232]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26554]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82221; File No. SR-OCC-2017-805]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection To Advance Notice Filing Concerning the Use of
the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
(``SWIFT'') Messaging Network in OCC's Cash Settlement Process

December 5, 2017.
    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed on October 10,
2017 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
advance notice SR-OCC-2017-805 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of
2010 (``Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \2\
(``Exchange Act'') to propose changes to the current process OCC uses
to conduct cash settlement with Clearing Members \3\ by requiring
Clearing Banks to integrate the use of the Society of Worldwide
Interbank Financial Telecommunication (``SWIFT'') messaging network.
The proposed changes are intended to enhance the resiliency,
efficiency, and consistency of the cash settlement process and thereby
mitigate risks that are associated with the existing cash settlement
process. The Advance Notice was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 17, 2017.\4\ The Commission has not received any
comments on the Advance Notice to date. This publication serves as
notice of no objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated OCC a systemically important financial market
utility (``SIFMU'') on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability
Oversight Council 2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, OCC is required to comply
with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act and file
advance notices with the Commission.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ Unless specified otherwise, capitalized terms shall have the
meaning OCC ascribes in its By-Laws and Rules.
    \4\ Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Concerning the use of the
Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication Messaging
Network in OCC's Cash Settlement Process, Exchange Act Release No.
82055 (Nov. 13, 2017), 82 FR 54448 (Nov. 17, 2017) (``Notice of
Filing of Advance Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    In connection with OCC's performance of clearance and settlement
services, OCC and its Clearing Members are obligated to perform cash
settlement functions pursuant to OCC's By-Laws and Rules. For example,
a Clearing Member may be obligated to pay OCC the premium for a cleared
contract, or OCC may be obligated to pay a Clearing Member the
settlement value of a cleared contract.\5\ The cash settlement process
for these and other clearance and settlement services is facilitated by
Clearing Banks, which are banks or trust companies that have entered
agreements with OCC to settle on behalf of Clearing Members and at
which OCC and Clearing Members each maintain accounts.\6\ Currently,
there are eight Clearing Banks with which OCC effects cash settlements
through the ENCORE clearing system (``OCS'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Article VI, Section 4 of OCC's By-Laws (Obligations of
Purchasing Clearing Members); see also Chapter V of OCC's Rules
(Daily Cash Settlement); Article VI, Section 6.01 of OCC's By-Laws
(requiring, among other things, that OCC be substituted through
novation as the buyer of every seller and seller to every buyer with
respect to obligations owing to persons having positions in cleared
contract); Article I, Section 1.S.(16) of OCC's By-Laws (defining
the term ``settlement time'').
    \6\ See OCC Rule 101.C.(1) (defining the term ``clearing bank''
to mean ``a bank or trust company which has entered into an
agreement with [OCC] in respect of settlement of confirmed trades on
behalf of Clearing Members.'').
    \7\ See generally OCC Completes Second Major Installation of
EncoreTM Clearing System (November 25, 2002) available at
https://www.theocc.com/about/newsroom/releases/2002/11_25.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC generates settlement instructions associated with Cleared
Contracts and Stock Loans of Clearing Members by running specific
predefined settlement profiles \8\ throughout the day. These settlement
instructions are categorized as either start-of-day instructions or
intra-day instructions. The resulting settlement instructions are
generally transmitted by OCC to Clearing Banks by way of OCS, at which
point the Clearing Banks are able to view batches of settlement
instructions within OCS.\9\ Clearing Bank staff review the settlement
instructions by logging into OCS and opening the settlement batch.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Predefined settlement profiles are programmed to track
various types of obligations to pay or collect cash in connection
with Cleared Contracts and Stock Loans that are in turn used to
generate settlement instructions.
    \9\ A settlement batch is a set of individual debit or credit
settlement instructions that may either instruct a Clearing Bank to
move funds to or from an OCC settlement account or to or from a
Clearing Member's account at the same Clearing Bank.
    \10\ One of the Clearing Banks, however, currently does not
utilize OCS as its primary means of effecting cash settlement.
Instead, the Clearing Bank primarily receives settlement
instructions from OCC via facsimile, reviews the settlement
instructions, approves or rejects them, and then returns a facsimile
confirmation to OCC. After receipt of the confirmation, OCC staff
manually enters the approvals or rejections into OCS. This Clearing
Bank will transfer to the SWIFT messaging network after
implementation of the proposals described herein.

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

    Each Clearing Bank has entered into a Cash Settlement Procedures
Agreement (``CSPA'') with OCC that details the substantive rights and
responsibilities of the parties and specifies operational procedures
for which they are responsible regarding start-of-day and intra-day
settlement instructions. This process includes prescribed communication
methods and settlement procedures, including a requirement that the
Clearing Bank act upon the settlement instructions before a defined
settlement time. If a Clearing Bank does not expressly accept or reject
a settlement instruction by the specified settlement time, the Clearing
Bank is deemed to have accepted the instruction.
    The processes agreed to in the CSPAs currently are conducted via
OCS because the SWIFT messaging network is available for cash
settlement processes in narrow circumstances only. For example, OCC
states that SWIFT is available to Clearing Members to deposit letters
of credit for margining purposes provided: (i) They are denominated in
U.S. dollars, (ii) they are issued by banks or trust companies, (iii)
they are approved by OCC as margin assets, and (iv) the issuer of any
such letter of credit submits amendments to OCC using the SWIFT
network. OCC states that it manages this process through a SWIFT system
that interfaces with OCC's OCS so that OCC is able to track and process
the amendment messages.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice of Filing of Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposals set forth in OCC's Advance Notice would change its
current cash settlement process with Clearing Members by: (i) Requiring
Clearing Banks to expand the use of the SWIFT messaging network, and
(ii) creating a new standardized CSPA template. Collectively, OCC
believes these changes would improve OCC's resiliency, efficiency, and
consistency, thereby mitigating risks.\12\ The specifics of the
proposals are described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice of Filing of Advance Notice for a more detailed
description of the specific rule changes OCC is proposing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Advance Notice

A. Proposed Change To Increase SWIFT Utilization

    OCC's Advance Notice states that the changes to its cash settlement
process are intended to improve OCC's current cash settlement process
by implementing the SWIFT messaging network as the primary means of
transmitting daily cash settlement between OCC and the Clearing Banks.
Currently, OCS requires Clearing Banks to process aspects of the cash
settlement process manually, including logging into OCS to reject
settlement instructions or to accept in instances where Clearing Banks
opt to actively accept settlement instructions prior to the specified
settlement time. These requirements result in inconsistent operational
practices across Clearing Banks since OCS is a proprietary online cash
settlement system and not all Clearing Banks use OCS consistently.\13\
Furthermore, the manual processing steps introduce risks for error and
can result in elongated times for processing, response, and approval.
Requiring all of the Clearing Banks to integrate the use of SWIFT into
their operations facilitating OCC's cash settlement with Clearing
Members would eliminate the facsimile, telephone, and email
communications as primary communication methods for settlement
processing while harmonizing the cash settlement process across all
Clearing Banks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the automated nature of the SWIFT messaging network, OCC
believes that implementing SWIFT would reduce manual processing and
approval steps. For instance, settlement instructions would be
automatically transmitted to Clearing Banks over the SWIFT network so
that Clearing Bank staff would not need to log into OCS to accept or
reject them. Similarly, OCC automatically would receive any acceptances
provided.\14\ In addition, OCC could monitor all cash-settlement
related SWIFT messages it sends or receives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If a Clearing Bank fails to accept the settlement
instructions, OCC would follow up with the Clearing Bank to
determine the reason no acceptance was provided and to coordinate
with the Clearing Bank that appropriate action is taken with respect
to the instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, OCC believes that the proposed changes would increase
the efficiency, accuracy, and resiliency of OCC's cash settlement
process while eliminating certain risks inherent in both having
Clearing Banks using different systems that employ manual processes. In
addition, OCC states that the changes would adopt communication
procedures and standards that are internationally accepted and
therefore are consistent with the requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22)
under the Exchange Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes to CSPA

    The CSPA is the principal form of agreement that: (i) Governs the
rights and responsibilities of OCC and each Clearing Bank, (ii) details
operational procedures (including backup procedures) and security
protocols, and (iii) identifies individuals at OCC and at the Clearing
Bank who are authorized to act on behalf of each party with respect to
cash settlement instructions. According to OCC, the CSPAs currently in
effect between OCC and its Clearing Banks were implemented over many
years as OCC's operations expanded and it became appropriate to
maintain service agreements with a range of Clearing Banks. In
addition, many of OCC's CSPAs have not been renegotiated in a long
time. Accordingly, OCC states that there are substantial deviations
among some of the terms and conditions of the respective CSPAs and the
corresponding Clearing Bank practices.
    As a part of the transition to SWIFT, Clearing Banks would enter
into new CSPAs with OCC. Each CSPA would be based on a standardized
template developed by OCC in collaboration with its Clearing Banks.
Each CSPA would establish various deadlines for OCC and the Clearing
Bank as well as backup procedures.\16\ OCC believes that the
renegotiation of the CSPAs with the Clearing Banks to accommodate the
adoption of the SWIFT messaging network as the primary process to
support daily cash settlement also would allow the agreements to be
updated to ensure their uniform compliance with the requirements in
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A key change is that Clearing Banks would not be deemed to
have accepted settlement instructions in the absence of a
communication.
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act of
2010 (``Act'') does not specify a standard of review for an advance
notice, the stated purpose of the Act is instructive.\18\ The stated
purpose of the Act is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system
and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting
uniform risk management standards for SIFMUs and strengthening the
liquidity of SIFMUs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Act \20\ authorizes the Commission to
prescribe regulations containing risk-management

standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of
designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section 805(b) of the Act
\21\ provides the following objectives and principles for the
Commission's risk-management standards prescribed under Section 805(a):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \21\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To promote robust risk management;
     To promote safety and soundness;
     To reduce systemic risks; and
     To support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk-
management standards may address such areas as risk-management and
default policies and procedures, among others areas.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk-management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Act and the Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency
Rules'').\23\ The Clearing Agency Rules require each covered clearing
agency, among other things, to establish, implement, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
meet certain minimum requirements for operations and risk-management
practices on an ongoing basis. As such, it is appropriate for the
Commission to review advance notices for consistency with the
objectives and principles for risk-management standards described in
Section 805(b) of the Act and the Clearing Agency Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Covered Clearing
Agency Standards''). The Commission established an effective date of
December 12, 2016, and a compliance date of April 11, 2017, for the
Covered Clearing Agency Standards. On March 4, 2017, the Commission
granted covered clearing agencies a temporary exemption from
compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) and certain requirements in
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) and (ii) until December 31, 2017, subject to
certain conditions. OCC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined
in Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Payment, Clearing and
Settlement Supervision Act

    The Commission believes each proposal in OCC's Advance Notice is
consistent with promoting robust risk management, promoting safety and
soundness, reducing systemic risks, and supporting the stability of the
broader financial system, the stated objectives and principles of
Section 805(b) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to implement the
SWIFT messaging network as the primary means of transmitting cash
settlement instructions between OCC and each Clearing Bank is
consistent with promoting safety and soundness. The Commission agrees
with OCC's analysis that usage of the SWIFT messaging network would
mitigate risks that arise in the existing cash settlement process due
to manual processing steps and inconsistent practices across OCC's
Clearing Banks. By having an automated and standardized process that
sends automatic messages without requiring Clearing Bank staff members
to log into OCS to manually accept or reject settlement instructions,
the Commission further believes the proposal would enhance the
resiliency, efficiency, and consistency of OCC's cash settlement
process. The Commission therefore believes this specific proposal is
consistent with promoting safety and soundness.
    Second, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to update,
enhance and standardize a uniform set of CSPAs between OCC and each
Clearing Bank would promote robust risk management. Specifically, the
Commission believes that this proposal will reduce the risk of
settlement delay or error that may arise due to each Clearing Bank
operating according to disparate CSPA terms and requirements. The
Commission therefore believes this specific proposal is consistent with
promoting robust risk management.
    Consistent with the conclusions discussed above, the Commission
also believes that OCC's proposal is consistent with supporting the
broader stability of the financial system. Specifically, the Commission
believes that promoting the prompt and accurate messaging between OCC
and the Clearing Banks would promote safety and soundness of both OCC
and Clearing Banks. The reduction in errors and delays arising from the
proposed implementation of SWIFT and more harmonized CSPAs would also
enhance the reliability and resilience of OCC's cash settlement process
for Clearing Members, thereby decreasing systemic risks. Accordingly,
the proposed changes would support the stability of the broader
financial system. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposals
contained in the Advance Notice are consistent with the stated
objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Act.

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22) Under the Exchange Act

    The Commission further believes that OCC's proposals in the Advance
Notice are consistent with the Covered Clearing Agency Standards,
specifically Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22) under the Exchange Act.\25\ Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(22) requires each covered clearing agency to establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to, ``use, or at a minimum, accommodate, relevant
internationally accepted communication procedures and standards in
order to facilitate efficient payment, clearing, and settlement.'' \26\
In adopting this requirement, the Commission stated that, ``[r]elevant
internationally accepted communication procedures and standards could
include messaging standards such as SWIFT, FIX and FpML.'' \27\
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposals to expand the
usage of the SWIFT messaging network and standardize the CSPAs with
each Clearing Bank pursuant to the SWIFT messaging network
implementation are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(22) under the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(22).
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786, 70842 at n. 510 (October 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the
Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act,\28\ that the
Commission does not object to Advance Notice (SR-OCC-2017-805) and that
OCC is authorized to implement the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26554 Filed 12-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75473-75476]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79156; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Add Commentary
.14 to Rule 3317 (Compliance With Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a
Tick Size Pilot)

October 25, 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 October 17, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 add Commentary .14 to Rule 3317
(Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot) to
provide the SEC with notice of its efforts to re-program its systems to
eliminate a re-pricing functionality for certain orders in Test Group
Three securities in connection with the Regulation NMS Plan to
Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'').\3\ Phlx
also

proposes to re-number current Commentary .12 relating to the Block Size
exception to Commentary .13 as a technical correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is in italics; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

NASDAQ PHLX Rules

* * * * *

3317. Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size
Pilot

    (a) through (d) No Change.
    Commentary: .01-.12 No change.
    .1[2]3 For purposes of qualifying for the Block Size exception
under paragraph (c)(3)(D)(iii) of this Rule, the Order must have a
size of 5,000 shares or more and the resulting execution upon entry
must have a size of 5,000 shares or more in aggregate.
    .14 Until October 31, 2016, the treatment of Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only
Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three securities shall be as follows:
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to
Comply Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to
Display Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Display Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Non-Displayed
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO up (down) to the
Order's limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, the Post-Only
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price
on the Exchange Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only
Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original entered
limit price.
* * * * *

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 September 7, 2016, the Exchange filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change
(``Proposal'') to adopt paragraph (d) and Commentary .12 to Exchange
Rule 3317 to describe changes to system functionality necessary to
implement the Plan. The Exchange also proposed amendments to Rule
3317(a) and (c) to clarify how the Trade-at exception may be satisfied.
The SEC published the Proposal in the Federal Register for notice and
comment on September 20, 2016.\4\ Phlx subsequently filed three Partial
Amendments to clarify aspects of the Proposal. The Commission approved
the Proposal, as amended, on October 7, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78835 (September 14,
2016), 81 FR 64552 (September 20, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-92).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79074 (October 7,
2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-Phlx-2016-92, Phlx had initially proposed a re-pricing
functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Group
Three securities.\6\ Phlx subsequently determined that it would not
offer this re-pricing functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and
FLITE protocols in Group Three securities. As part of Partial Amendment
No. 2 to SR-Phlx-2016-92, Phlx proposed to delete the relevant language
from Rule 4770 [sic] related to this re-pricing functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As originally proposed, Rule 3317(d)(2) stated that Price to
Comply Orders in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price. Rule 3317(d)(3) stated that, if market
conditions allow, a Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group Three Pilot
Security will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to
the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit price. Rule 3317(d)(4)
stated that, if market conditions allow, the Post-Only Order in a
Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly in
accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Phlx
Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able
to be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that amendment, Phlx noted that this change would only impact
the treatment of Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only orders that are submitted through the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three Pilot Securities, as these types of
Orders that are currently submitted to Phlx through the RASH or FIX
protocols are already subject to this re-pricing functionality and will
remain subject to this functionality under the Pilot.
    In the Amendment, Phlx further noted that its systems are currently
programmed so that Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three Securities may be adjusted repeatedly to reflect changes to
the NBBO and/or the best price on the Phlx book. Phlx stated that it is
re-programming its systems to remove this functionality for Price to
Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and Post-Only Orders entered
through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test Group Three Securities.\7\
In the Amendment, Phlx stated that it anticipated that this re-
programming shall be completed no later than November 30, 2016. If it
appears that this functionality will remain operational by October 17,
2016, Phlx indicated that it would file a proposed rule change with the
SEC and will provide notice to market participants sufficiently in
advance of that date to provide effective notice. The rule change and
the notice to market participants will describe the current operation
of the Phlx systems in this regard, and the timing related to the re-
programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BX [sic] has become aware that this re-pricing functionality
also applies to Price to Display Orders that are entered through the
OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test Group Three Securities, and is
including those Orders as part of this proposal accordingly. Price
to Display Orders will be treated in the same manner as Price to
Comply Orders under the re-pricing functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, Phlx is still in the process of re-programming its
systems to eliminate the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three
securities for Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-
Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols. Phlx
anticipates that this re-programming shall be complete on or before
October 31, 2016.
    Therefore, the current treatment of Price to Comply Orders, Price
to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are
entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in Test Group Three
securities shall be as follows:
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Comply
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Comply

Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit
price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to Display
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as the Price to
Display Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original
entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Non-Displayed
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit
price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Post-Only Order
in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly in
accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Phlx Book,
as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able to be
ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
    In addition to this proposal, Phlx will also issue an Equity Trader
Alert that describes the current operation of the Phlx systems in this
regard, and the timing related to the removal of this re-pricing
functionality.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Phlx anticipates providing additional specificity to market
participants as to the timing of the new functionality at a later
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx also proposes to re-number Commentary .12, which relates to
the Block Size exception, to Commentary .13. A previous filing (SR-
Phlx-2016-90) added Commentary to Rule 3317 that resulted in Commentary
.11, which addresses the effective date of the Rule, being re-numbered
as Commentary .12. Phlx therefore proposes to re-number the Commentary
.12 that addresses the Block Size exception as Commentary .13.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ 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. The purpose of this filing is to inform the SEC and market
participants of the status of Phlx's attempts to re-program its systems
to remove the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three securities
for Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed
Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols, and the current treatment of such orders pending the removal
of this functionality. This proposal is consistent with the Act because
it provides the SEC and market participants with notice of Phlx's
efforts in this regard, and is being submitted in connection with the
statements made by Phlx in SR-Phlx-2016-92 in proposing the removal of
this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx also believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
because the re-pricing functionality will not significantly impact the
data gathered pursuant to the Pilot. Phlx notes that this re-pricing
functionality only affects Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display
Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered
through the OUCH or FLITE protocols for Test Group Three securities
until the re-pricing functionality is eliminated, and only becomes
relevant when an Order in a Test Group Three security would cross a
Protected Quotation of another market center. Phlx has analyzed data
relating to the frequency with which Orders in Test Group Three
securities are entered with a limit price that would cross a Protected
Quotation of another market center, and believes that the re-pricing
functionality will be triggered infrequently once Test Group Three
becomes operational.\11\ The Exchange also notes that it is diligently
working to re-program its systems to remove this re-pricing
functionality, and that it anticipates this re-programming to be
complete on or before October 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, on September 23, 2016, 0.3% of orders in Test
Group Three securities were entered on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
at a price that crossed the NBBO. Phlx believes that this number
will be even lower starting October 17, 2016, when the $0.05 tick
increment for Test Group Three securities is in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of this proposal is
to provide the SEC and market participants with notice of Phlx's
efforts to remove its re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three
securities for Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-
Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the
OUCH or FLITE protocols, consistent with its statements in SR-Phlx-
2016-92.

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 \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) so that this proposed change will be in operative as of
October 17, 2016, the date that Test Group Three securities begin to be
subject to the quoting and trading restrictions of the Plan and,
therefore, the relevant language in Rule 3317.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rules
immediately thereby preventing delays in the implementation of the
Plan. The Commission notes that the Pilot started implementation on
October 3, 2016, Test Group Three securities were phased into the Pilot
starting on October 17, 2016, and waiving the 30-day operative delay
would ensure that the rules of the Exchange would be in place during
implementation. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2016-106 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-2016-106. 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-2016-106, and should be
submitted on or before November 21, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26139 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33032-33035]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14628]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0184; FRL-9996-27-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Reasonably Available Control Technology State
Implementation Plan for Volatile Organic Compounds Under the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
District of Columbia (the District). The District's SIP revision
satisfies the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The District will
address RACT for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in a separate SIP
submission. The District's RACT submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
includes certification that for certain major sources, previously
adopted VOC RACT controls in the District's SIP that were approved by
EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and
continue to represent RACT for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; a listing of the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) already
adopted into the District's SIP, and a listing of those categories of
sources subject to CTGs which do not exist in the District and the
location of prior negative declarations previously submitted and
approved by EPA. The District's SIP submittal also includes an update
to the 2002 Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing (MERR) rule to
incorporate the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) 2009 Motor Vehicle
and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations regulations
(MVMERR) rule adopted by the District in 2016. EPA is addressing

the 2009 MVMERR rule in a separate rulemaking action as it is not
related to the 2008 VOC RACT SIP revision and does not impact EPA's
proposed approval. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2019-0184 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30) Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2036. Mr. Gregory A. Becoat can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 2018, the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) submitted a SIP revision to
address all the RACT requirements for VOCs set forth by the CAA under
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2018 RACT Submission). The DOEE also
submitted as an amendment to the SIP-approved 2002 MERR rule the
updated 2009 MVMERR rule. As previously mentioned, the 2009 MVMERR rule
will be addressed in a separate rulemaking notice.

I. Background

A. General

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOCs and NOX in the presence of sunlight. In order
to reduce these ozone concentrations, the CAA requires control of VOC
and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions in
moderate or more serious ozone nonattainment areas. Among effective
control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and
NOX emissions from major stationary sources.
    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\1\ Section 172 of the CAA sets forth general requirements
for SIPs in nonattainment areas, including a requirement that SIPs must
include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for attainment of
the NAAQS, including emissions reductions from existing sources through
adoption of RACT. CAA section 172(c)(1). Part D, subpart 2 of the CAA
sets forth additional provisions for ozone nonattainment areas. CAA
sections 181-185B. Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) of the CAA require
states with moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas to implement
RACT controls on all stationary sources and source categories covered
by a CTG document issued by EPA, and on all major sources of VOC and
NOX emissions located in the area. A major source in a
nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit NOX or VOC above a certain
applicability threshold that is based on the ozone nonattainment
classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe. See
``major stationary source'' in CAA sections 182(c), (d), (e), 184(b)
and 302. EPA's CTGs establish presumptive RACT control requirements for
various VOC source categories. The CTGs typically identify a particular
control level that EPA recommends as being RACT. In some cases, EPA has
issued Alternative Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) primarily for
NOX source categories, which in contrast to the CTGs, only
present a range for possible control options but do not identify any
particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT. Section
183(c) of the CAA requires EPA to revise and update CTGs and ACTs as
the Administrator determines necessary. EPA issued 11 new CTGs from
2006 through 2008 for a total of 44 CTGs issued since November 1990.
States are required to implement RACT for the source categories covered
by CTGs through the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' see also 44 FR 53761, 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(a) of the CAA established a single ozone transport
region (OTR), comprising all or part of 12 eastern states and the
District.\2\ The District is part of the OTR and, therefore, must
comply with the RACT requirements in section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2) of
the CAA. Specifically, section 184(b)(1)(B) requires the implementation
of RACT in OTR states with respect to all sources of VOC covered by a
CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) states that any stationary source
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs shall
be considered a major source and subject to the requirements which
would be applicable to major stationary sources as if the area was
classified as a moderate nonattainment area. A major source in a
moderate nonattainment area is defined by section 302(j) as any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of any air pollutant, including NOX or VOC. Section
182(f) extends the SIP requirements for major sources of VOCs to major
sources of NOX, as defined in sections 302 and 182(c), (d),
and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia is included
in the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The District of Columbia's History

    The District has been subject to the CAA RACT requirements because
of previous ozone designations. The District was designated as a
Serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. On January 24, 2003, the
District's nonattainment classification was ``bumped up'' from Serious
to Severe for the 1-hour NAAQS and the District was required to submit
RACT evaluations on point sources with a potential to emit (PTE) 25 tpy
for either VOCs or NOX (68 FR 3410). Revisions to the
District's VOC RACT provisions to redefine major source thresholds were
adopted into the SIP on December 28, 2004 (69 FR 77647) and the final
attainment demonstration for the 1-hour NAAQS was approved on March 13,
2005 (70 FR 25688). Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the District was
designated as a Moderate nonattainment area. As a result, the District
continued to be subject to the CAA RACT requirements. 69 FR 23858,
23931 (April 30, 2004). The District

promulgated its RACT regulations, certifying that the previously
adapted RACT controls approved under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continued
to represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that no
facilities existed in the District for several remaining CTG
categories. EPA approved the SIP revision on June 16, 2009 (74 FR
28447).
    Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated the District
as a marginal nonattainment area. As part of the OTR, the District
must, at a minimum, implement more stringent moderate area RACT
requirements for: (1) All categories of VOC or NOX sources
covered by a CTG; (2) all other major stationary sources of VOC or
NOX located in the area. Section 182(b)(2). For the
District's 2008 VOC RACT analysis, despite classification as a marginal
nonattainment area, the OTR major source thresholds of 50 tpy for VOCs
and 100 tpy for NOX apply. Sections 184(b)(2), 182(f)(1).

C. EPA Guidance and Requirements

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS, as well as guidance. On
March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). 80 FR 12264,
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. This rule addressed, among
other things, control and planning obligations as they apply to
nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT
and RACM. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA stated that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations that there are no sources in the nonattainment area
covered by a specific CTG source category. 78 FR 34178, 34192. Stated
differently, states can meet the RACT requirements either through (1) a
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP
revisions approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS continue to
represent adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; (2) through the adoption of new or more stringent
regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels; or (3) a
negative declaration if there are no source categories subject to
certain CTGs within the nonattainment area in lieu of, or in addition
to, a certification. A certification must be accompanied by appropriate
supporting information such as consideration of information received
during the public comment period and consideration of new data.
Adoption of new RACT regulations will occur when states have new
stationary sources not covered by existing RACT regulations, or when
new data or technical information indicates that a previously adopted
RACT measure does not represent a newly available RACT control level.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 29, 2018, the DOEE submitted a SIP revision to address
all the VOC RACT requirements set forth by the CAA for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the District's 2018 RACT Submission
includes: (1) A certification that for certain major sources,
previously adopted VOC RACT controls in the District's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
based on the currently available technically and economically feasible
controls, and continue to represent RACT for implementation of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) a listing of the CTGs already adopted into the
District's SIP, and (3) a listing of those categories of sources
subject to CTGs which do not exist in the District and the location of
prior negative declarations previously submitted and approved by EPA.
    The District's Regulations and Statutes, under DMCR Subtitle A (Air
Quality), Chapter 7--Volatile Organic Compounds, contain the VOC RACT
controls that were implemented and approved into the District's SIP
under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The District is
certifying that these regulations, all previously approved by EPA into
the SIP, continue to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for major stationary sources of VOCs and CTG-covered
sources of VOCs. The District also submitted negative declarations for
those sources covered by CTGs and ACT guidelines that have not been
adopted due to no affected facilities in the District in their review
of applicable 2008 8-hour ozone RACT requirements. Additionally, the
District conducted a RACT analysis for each major non-CTG stationary
source of VOC. For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the District determined
that there were three major stationary sources with a PTE of 50 tpy or
more of VOCs. The District evaluated the equipment at these sources to
determine whether there was any equipment emitting VOCs that were not
covered by RACT level controls or a CTG. For equipment at these sources
not covered by RACT controls or CTGs, the District determined that the
actual emissions of VOCs from this equipment were so small that it
would not be cost-effective (economically feasible) to apply controls.
    More detailed information on the District's 2018 VOC RACT
submission; as well as a detailed summary of EPA's review of the
submission, can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
this action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0184.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed the District's 2018 RACT submission and is
proposing to approve it as a SIP revision. The District has met the
RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as set forth by
sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA. The District's SIP revision
satisfies the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements through (1)
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in the District's
SIP for major, non-CTG VOC sources that were approved by EPA under the
1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to be based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and
that they continue to represent RACT; (2) a listing identifying those
CTGs which the District has already adopted into its SIP, and (3) a
listing of the negative declarations previously submitted by the
District for those source categories covered by CTGs that do not exist
in the District. EPA finds that the District's 2018 RACT Submission
demonstrates that the District has adopted air pollution control
strategies that represent RACT for the purposes of compliance with the
2008 8-hour ozone standard for all major stationary sources of VOC, it
implements RACT with respect to all sources of VOCs covered by a CTG
issued prior to July 20, 2014, and has submitted or previously
submitted negative declarations for those VOC sources covered by CTGs
and ACTs that are not found in the District. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document relevant to VOC RACT
requirements for the District for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These comments
will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference source-specific RACT determinations under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of VOC emissions. EPA has made,
and will

continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, the District's 2008 8-hour ozone
RACT SIP revision does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the District, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-14628 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31389-31390]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09563]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008; FRL-10008-19-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; partial deletion.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Former Export Plant of the
Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site) located in Lincoln County,
Montana, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial deletion pertains to OU1. Operable
Unit 2 (OU2), Former Screening Plant, was deleted from the NPL on April
10, 2019. Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former Vermiculite Mine; Operable Unit
4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7), Residential/Commercial Properties of
Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), Former Stimson Lumber Mill;
Operable Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and Operable Unit 8 (OU8),
Highways and Roadways, are not being considered for deletion as part of
this proposed action and will remain on the NPL. The EPA and the State
of Montana, through the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
other than operation and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, the deletion of these parcels does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective May 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
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 electronically in http://www.regulations.gov; by calling EPA
Region 8 at<PHONE_NUMBER> and leaving a message; and at the EPA Info
Center, 108 E 9th Street, Libby, MT 59923,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday
through Thursday from 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dania Zinner, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Mailcode: 8SEM-RB, Denver, CO 80202-1129, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The portion of the site to be deleted from
the NPL is: OU1, Lincoln County, MT. A Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion for this Site was published in the Federal Register (85 FR
4249) on January 24, 2020.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion was February 24, 2020. Two public comments were received. The
comments did not object to the deletion; they highlighted management of
institutional controls and updating the operations and maintenance plan
as appropriate in the future. EPA believes the partial deletion action
is appropriate. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in
both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008, on www.regulations.gov, and in
the local repositories listed above.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion of a site from the

NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system. Deletion of portions of a site from the NPL does not affect
responsible party liability, in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: April 29, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-09563 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31680-31682]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12927]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67039; File No. SR-ISE-2012-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Qualification Standards for Market Makers To
Receive a Rebate

May 22, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on May 15, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 ISE is proposing to amend the qualification standards for
market makers to receive a rebate under the Exchange's modified maker/
taker pricing structure. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 this proposed rule change is to amend the
qualification standards for market makers to receive a rebate under the
Exchange's maker/taker pricing structure. The Exchange currently
assesses per contract transaction fees and provides rebates to market
participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange (``maker/
taker fees and rebates'') in a number of options classes (the ``Select
Symbols'').\3\ The maker/taker fees and rebates apply to the following
categories of market participants: (i) Market Maker; \4\ (ii) Market
Maker Plus; (iii) Non-ISE Market Maker; \5\ (iv) Firm Proprietary; (v)
Customer (Professional);\6\ (vi) Priority Customer,\7\ 100 or more
contracts; and (vii) Priority Customer, less than 100 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \5\ A Non-ISE Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''),
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \6\ A Customer (Professional) is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to promote and encourage liquidity in the Select Symbols,
the Exchange currently offers a $0.10 per contract rebate to Market
Makers if the quotes they sent to the Exchange qualify the Market Maker
to become a Market Maker Plus.\8\ A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker
who is on the National Best Bid or National Best Offer (NBBO) 80% of
the time for series trading between $0.03 and $5.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than
or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $5.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was greater
than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration months and
80% of the time for series trading between $0.03 and $5.00 (for options
whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
less than or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $5.00 (for options
whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium for all expiration months in that symbol
during the current trading month.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The concept of incenting market makers with a rebate is not
novel. In 2008, the CBOE established a program for its Hybrid Agency
Liaison whereby it provides a $0.20 per contact rebate to its market
makers provided that at least 80% of the market maker's quotes in a
class during a month are on one side of the national best bid or
offer. Market makers not meeting CBOE's criteria are not eligible to
receive a rebate. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57231
(January 30, 2008), 73 FR 6752 (February 5, 2008). The CBOE has
since lowered the criteria from 80% to 60%. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 57470 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14514 (March 18,
2008).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62507 (July 15,
2010), 75 FR 42802 (July 22, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend the Market Maker Plus
qualification standards in order for a Market Maker to qualify for the
$0.10 per contract rebate when providing liquidity (making) in the
Select Symbols. Specifically, ISE proposes to exclude from the NBBO
calculation a Market Maker's single best and single worst overall
quoting days in a symbol if doing so qualifies the Market Maker for the
rebate. In effect, this variation to the current qualification
standards will give a Market Maker the better of the NBBO average of
all days in a month or the NBBO average of the month excluding the best
and worst days, on a per symbol basis. The Exchange believes this
proposed change will further encourage Market Makers to continue to
quote aggressively in a class throughout the entire month despite an
individual poor-performing day.
    The Exchange currently determines whether a Market Maker qualifies
as a Market Maker Plus at the end of each month by looking back at each
Market Maker's quoting statistics per symbol during that month. If at
the end of the month, a Market Maker meets the Exchange's stated
criteria, the Exchange rebates $0.10 per contract for transactions in
that symbol executed by

that Market Maker as a maker during that month. The Exchange will
continue to monitor each Market Maker's quoting statistics to determine
whether a Market Maker qualifies for a rebate under the standards
proposed herein.
    The Exchange also currently provides Market Makers a report on a
daily basis with quoting statistics so that Market Makers can determine
whether or not they are meeting the Exchange's current stated criteria.
Again, the Exchange will continue to provide Market Makers a daily
report so that Market Makers can track their quoting activity to
determine whether or not they qualify for the Market Maker Plus rebate.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also encourage
Market Makers to post tighter markets in the Select Symbols and thereby
increase liquidity and attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on June
1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \10\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange
Act \11\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members and
other persons using its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the
net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend on a
number of variables, most important of which will be its propensity to
add or remove liquidity in the Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide rebates to Market Makers because paying a rebate would continue
to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and create liquidity
in the symbols that are subject to the rebate which the Exchange
believes ultimately will benefit all market participants who trade on
ISE. The Exchange already provides a rebate to Market Makers who meet
the Exchange's stated quoting criteria, and is now merely proposing to
broaden the qualification standards (not quoting requirements) that
Market Makers have to meet in order to qualify for the rebate.
    The Exchange believes that amending the qualification standards for
Market Makers to qualify for a rebate will encourage these market
participants to continue to post tighter markets in the Select Symbols
and thereby increase liquidity and attract additional order flow to the
Exchange. The Market Maker Plus rebate employed by the Exchange has
proven to be an effective incentive for Market Makers to provide
liquidity in the Select Symbols. The Exchange further believes that the
Exchange's Market Maker Plus rebate is not unfairly discriminatory
because this rebate program is consistent with rebates that exist today
at other options exchanges. The Exchange believes that the Market Maker
Plus rebate is a competitive rebate and equivalent to incentives
provided by other exchanges and is therefore reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that direct orders to the Exchange rather
than to a competing exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to another exchange if they deem rebate levels at a
particular exchange to be low.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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 Exchange Act.\12\ 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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-ISE-2012-39 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-ISE-2012-39. 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-ISE-2012-39 and should be
submitted on or before June 19, 2012.

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

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12927 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

	As of: August 30, 2010

Tracking No. 80b37841

Comments Due: September 08, 2010

Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295

NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines - Amendments

Comment On: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0001

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

Document: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0034

Comment submitted by D. Meierhenry

Submitter Information

General Comment

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compressions Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed performance standards for stationary compression and spark ignition engines.

1.  60.4211(f)(4) and 60.4243(d)(4) specify compliance requirements for emergency CI and SI engines, respectively. These sections both state.  “The engine may not be operated for more than 30 minutes prior to the time when the emergency condition is expected to occur, and the engine operation must be terminated immediately after the facility is notified that the emergency condition is no longer imminent.”  I disagree with the need for these limitations and foresee  arguments over the meaning of “immediately”, and why 30 minutes is an acceptable period but 31 minutes is not, and what criteria are used to determine “when the emergency condition is expected to occur”, and the criteria for determining “that the emergency condition is no longer imminent”.  Although I have no proof, I do not believe the majority of sources are interested in operating their emergency generators any longer than necessary.  I suggest the time limits be deleted (or retained only as guidelines) and the EPA specify the operating record must clearly indicate when and why a  generator was operated.

2.  In the definition of emergency stationary internal combustion engine in 60.4219, the reference to 60.4211(e) should be changed to 60.4211(f).

I appreciate your consideration of these comments.

David Meierhenry
Sioux City<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


RECEIPT OF DELIVERY DATE: 04/ 17/ 2006 Receipt of Delivery TO: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Speaker of the House of Representatives The Capitol, H 209 Washington, D. C. 20515 FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460 TITLE( S) OF DOCUMENTS:

1. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Louisiana [ FRL # 8259 1, Region 6] Final 2. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites [ FRL # 82599 5, OSWER] Direct Final RECEIVED BY: ______________________________ Date:________________ RECEIPT OF DELIVERY DATE: 04/ 17/ 2006 Receipt of Delivery TO: The Honorable Richard B. Cheney President of the Senate The Capitol, S 212 Washington, DC 20510 FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460 TITLE( S) OF DOCUMENTS:

1. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Louisiana [ FRL # 8259 1, Region 6]

2. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites [ FRL # 82599 5, OSWER]

RECEIVED BY: ____________________________ Date:________________ RECEIPT OF DELIVERY DATE: 04/ 17/ 2006 Receipt of Delivery TO: Mr. Anthony Gamboa General Counsel General Accounting Office Room 7175 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548 FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460 TITLE( S) OF DOCUMENTS:

1. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Louisiana [ FRL # 8259 1, Region 6]

2. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites [ FRL # 82599 5, OSWER]

RECEIVED BY: ___________________________ Date:________________


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61612-61613]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0995; Amendment No. 91-319]

Airports/Locations: Special Operating Restrictions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its airports and locations special
operating restrictions regulation to clarify a minor discrepancy in
terminology. This amendment standardizes the language used to describe
the altitude at which aircraft operating within 30 nautical miles of
the listed airports are required to be equipped with an altitude
encoding transponder. This action is not making any substantive changes
to the regulation.

DATES: Effective: October 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Crum, Air Traffic Systems
Operations, Airspace and Rules Group, 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 30, 1999 (64 FR 66768), the FAA published a final rule
that revised 14 CFR part 91. In the final rule, Sec.  91.215(b)(2)
states ``* * *from the surface upward to 10,000 MSL* * *'' The
corresponding text in section 1 of Appendix D should be consistent in
describing the altitude as ``MSL'' but inadvertently was changed from
MSL to ``above the surface.'' Therefore, this action will correct this
inconsistency and change the phrase from ``above the surface'' to
``MSL'' in section 1 of Appendix D.
    As this rule simply corrects an inconsistency in the terminology
used to describe altitudes, good cause exists for adopting this
amendment without public notice or comment as provided under 5 U.S.C.
553(b). Furthermore, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making

this rule effective within less than 30 days.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717,
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).

0
2. Amend Appendix D to Part 91 by revising section 1 introductory text
to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 91--Airports/Locations: Special Operating
Restrictions

    Section 1. Locations at which the requirements of Sec.
91.215(b)(2) and Sec.  91.225(d)(2) apply. The requirements of
Sec. Sec.  91.215(b)(2) and 91.225(d)(2) apply below 10,000 feet MSL
within a 30-nautical-mile radius of each location in the following
list.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-25102 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P