[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12954-12957]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03857]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0227; FRL-9906-81-OAR]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Oklahoma; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Affecting Visibility
State Implementation Plan Revisions; Withdrawal of Federal
Implementation Plan for American Electric Power/Public Service Company
of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to amend a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Oklahoma that
became effective on January 27, 2012, as it applies to Units 3 and 4 of
the Northeastern Power Station in Rogers County, Oklahoma, which is
operated by the American Electric Power/Public Service Company of
Oklahoma (AEP/PSO). We are removing the FIP requirements for AEP/PSO
because, in a separate action being published in today's Federal
Register, we are taking final action to approve revisions to the
Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to EPA on June 20, 2013,
which address revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for Units 3 and 4 of AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power
Station in Rogers County, Oklahoma. The revisions (collectively, the
``Oklahoma SIP revisions'') also address the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) concerning non-interference with programs to protect
visibility in other states.

DATES: This final rule will be effective April 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0227. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be
charged for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor
at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Terry Johnson (6PD-L), Air
Planning Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue (6PD-L), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Johnson can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

    I. What is the background for this action?
    II. What final action is EPA taking?
    III. Responses to Comments Received
    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    The Oklahoma regional haze (RH) and interstate transport (IT) FIP
being amended by this action was promulgated in order to address
certain deficiencies in Oklahoma's BART determinations concerning the
appropriate level of control of SO2 emissions for Units 3
and 4 of AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station, as well as Units 4 and 5
of Oklahoma Gas and Electric's (OG&E) Muscogee Plant and Units 1 and 2
of the OG&E's Sooner Plant. On December 28, 2011, EPA disapproved the
SO2 BART determinations for all six units and simultaneously
issued a FIP containing a more stringent SO2 BART
determination (76 FR 81728). In the same action, EPA approved the
Oklahoma IT SIP, except to the extent that it relied on the disapproved
SO2 BART determinations for the six units mentioned above.
The FIP containing the more stringent SO2 BART
determinations also satisfied EPA's FIP obligation arising from the
disapproval of the IT SIP.
    The background for this final rule and the separate action also
being published today that approves the Oklahoma SIP revisions is
discussed in detail in our August 21, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 51686).
The comment period was open for 30 days, and we received 273 comments
in response to our proposed action.

II. What final action is EPA taking?

    We are withdrawing the Oklahoma RH and IT FIP at 40 CFR 52.1923, as
it applies to Units 3 and 4 of AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station.
Therefore, as of the effective date of this final rule, the Oklahoma RH
and IT FIP will no longer apply to AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station.
The Oklahoma RH and IT FIP provisions applicable to OG&E's Muscogee and
Sooner plants are unaffected by this action and remain in place.
    As explained in our August 21, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 51686),
this action is made possible because of our separate action being
published in today's Federal Register to approve the Oklahoma SIP
revisions, which update the Oklahoma RH and IT SIP to include a revised
BART determination for Units 3 and 4 of AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power
Station, as well as an enforceable commitment to address any shortfall
that may occur with respect the emission reductions relied upon in the
IT SIP. EPA has made the determination that the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision is approvable because the plan's provisions meet all
applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA implementing regulations.
    EPA is finalizing this action under section 110 and part C of the
Act.

III. Responses to Comments Received

    We received a total of 273 comments concerning our proposed action.
The issues raised in those comment letters are summarized, along with
our response to each, in the separate notice being published in today's
Federal Register that approves the Oklahoma SIP revisions. Copies of
the comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking. (Please
see Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0227 in the regulations.gov Web site).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Withdrawal of the Oklahoma RH and IT FIP as it applies to AEP/PSO
Northeastern Power Station means that the Federal plan no longer
applies to this facility.

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject
to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. because this FIP
amendment under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act will not
in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens. Because
this final action does not impose an information collection burden, the
Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    This rule withdraws the FIP for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power
Station, which is not a small entity, and does not create any new
requirements. After considering the economic impact of this rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for
State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action
imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because
it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This action removes a Federal plan
for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station. Small governments are not
impacted.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station
does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the State, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby states

take the lead in developing SIPs including SIPs to attain the NAAQS and
to meet other applicable CAA requirements including the Best Available
Retrofit requirements in CAA section 169(b)(2)(A) and the Visibility
Impairment requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This action
will not modify this relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action, EPA is not
addressing any Tribal Implementation Plans. This action is limited to
the withdrawal of the Oklahoma RH and IT FIP for AEP/PSO's Northeastern
Power Station. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to EO 13045 because EPA is withdrawing the
Oklahoma RH and IT FIP for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station, as
authorized by the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This FIP withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This FIP
withdrawal action for AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station does not
involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of
any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This final rule 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).

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 7, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.1923 is amended by revising the section heading, and
paragraphs (a), (c), and (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1923  Best Available Retrofit Requirements (BART) for
SO2 and Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are
the FIP requirements for Units 4 and 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Muskogee plant; and Units 1 and 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Sooner plant affecting visibility?

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator, or successive owners or operators, of the coal
burning equipment designated as: Units 4 or 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Muskogee plant; and Units 1 or 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Sooner plant.
* * * * *
    (c) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein
shall have the meaning given them in the CAA and in parts 51 and 60 of
this chapter. For the purposes of this section:
    24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12
midnight.
    Air pollution control equipment includes selective catalytic
control units, baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, and any
other apparatus utilized to control emissions of regulated air
contaminants that would be emitted to the atmosphere.
    Boiler-operating-day means any 24- hour period between 12:00
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted
at any time at the steam generating unit.
    Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values
measured in a 24-hour period.
    Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a unit and
does

not include the heat input from preheated combustion air, recirculated
flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat input shall be
calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
    Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises any of the coal burning equipment designated
as:
    (i) Unit 4 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Muskogee plant; or
    (ii) Unit 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Muskogee plant; or
    (iii) Unit 1 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Sooner plant; or
    (iv) Unit 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Sooner plant.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 6 or his/her authorized representative.
    Unit means one of the coal fired boilers covered under paragraph
(a) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) No later than the compliance date in paragraph (b) of this
section, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain and
operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for
SO2 on Units 4 and 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Muskogee plant; and Units 1 and 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Sooner plant in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h),
and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with the
quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75.
Compliance with the emission limits for SO2 shall be
determined by using data from a CEMS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-03857 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67264-67265]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-29-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-550); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-550 (Oil Pipeline Rates-Tariff Filings) and
submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 8,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0089, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC19-29-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or viewing/downloading comments and issuances
in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-550, Oil Pipeline Rates--Tariff Filings.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0089.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-550 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On July 30, 2019 (84 FR 36915), the Commission published
a Notice in the Federal Register in Docket No. IC19-29-000 requesting
public comments. The Commission received no public comments and is
indicating that in the related submittal to OMB.
    FERC-550 is required to implement sections of the Interstate
Commerce Act (ICA) (49 U.S.C. 1, et seq., 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85). The
Commission's regulatory jurisdiction over oil pipeline includes:
     Regulation of rates and practices of oil pipeline
companies engaged in interstate transportation;
     establishment of equal service conditions to provide
shippers with equal access to pipeline transportation;
     establishment of reasonable rates for transporting
petroleum and petroleum products by pipeline.
    The FERC-550 filing requirements for oil pipeline tariffs and rates
\1\ provide the Commission with the information it needs to analyze
proposed tariffs, rates, fares, and charges of oil pipeline and other
carriers in connection with the transportation of crude oil and
petroleum products. The Commission uses this information to determine
whether the proposed tariffs and rates are just and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 341-348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Oil Pipeline.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \3\ for the FERC-550 information
collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is 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. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \3\ The Commission staff thinks that the hourly cost (for wages
and benefits) for industry staff completing the FERC-550 is similar
to the cost of FERC employees. The cost figure is the FY2019 FERC
average annual salary plus benefits ($167,091/year or $80/hour).

                                  FERC-550: Oil Pipeline Rates--Tariff Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                Annual number   Total number    Average burden    burden hours &     Cost per
    Number of respondents       of responses   of responses 4   hrs. & cost ($)    total annual   respondent ($)
                               per respondent                    per response        cost ($)
(1)                                       (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)       (5) / (1)
                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
219..........................            3.24             710  7 hrs.; $560....  4,970 hrs.;           $1,815.52
                                                                                $397,600.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This figure is rounded.

    Dated: December 3, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26461 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34670-34671]
[DOCID:fr18jn10-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0386; FRL-9164-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Revision to Emission Limitations for R. Paul Smith Power
Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to
revised emission limitations for the R. Paul Smith Power Station
located in Washington County. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-0386 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0386, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0386. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On December 15, 2009, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted a revision to the Maryland

SIP. The SIP revision (09-04) pertains to changes in emission
limitations for the R. Paul Smith Power Station in Washington County.
This facility had annual nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone season NOx, and
sulfur oxides (SO2) emission limits that were established
under EPA-approved Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.27--Emission
Limitations for Power Plants, which was adopted by the State to meet
statutory requirements under the Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA). The
HAA allows R. Paul Smith to operate without complying with the emission
limitations set forth in this statute if PJM Interconnection, Inc.
(PJM) determines that termination of operation of the facility will
adversely affect the reliability of electrical service in the PJM
region. Subsequent to Maryland's adoption of COMAR 26.11.27 and EPA's
approval of the rule into the Maryland SIP, PJM determined that the R.
Paul Smith facility is needed to maintain electricity reliability in
the State. The HAA requires that if R. Paul Smith units 3 and 4 are
allowed to operate without complying with the emissions limitations
established in the statute, certain conditions must be met. These
conditions require that the facility operate at emissions levels that
are lower than the highest level measured at the facility during the
calendar years from 2000 through 2004, and that MDE review the
operations of the facility, then adopt regulations to establish an
alternative emissions requirement for the facility. In accordance with
these statutory requirements, MDE revised COMAR 26.11.27 to establish
alternative emission limits for these two Electric Generating Units at
R. Paul Smith.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    COMAR 26.11.27 is revised to establish new emission limitations for
R. Paul Smith Power Station. The NOx annual tonnage limits for R. Paul
Smith is revised from 416 tons to 1390 tons starting with the 2009
control period, the NOx ozone season limit is revised from 140 tons to
545 tons starting with the 2009 ozone season, and the SO2
annual tonnage is revised from 1002 tons to 4590 tons starting with the
2009 control period.
    Because the SIP revision increases emissions from this facility,
MDE was required to meet section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l)
requires that the revision not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of section 110. EPA's analysis
confirmed that the SIP revision does not interfere with any section
110(l) requirements. A more detailed discussion of EPA's rationale for
approval of this Maryland SIP revision may be found in the technical
support document (TSD) for this action.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by the State
of Maryland on December 15, 2009. The SIP revision incorporates
revisions to the emission limitations that apply to the R. Paul Smith
Power Station in Washington County. EPA is soliciting public comments
on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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 approving revisions to the emission
limitations for R. Paul Smith Power Station 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 state, 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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: June 7, 2010.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-14779 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72238]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Procedures for
Non-Federal Navigation Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. Non-Federal navigation facilities are electrical/electronic
aids to air navigation which are purchased, installed, operated, and
maintained by an entity other than the FAA and are available for use by
the flying public.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0014.
    Title: Procedures for Non-Federal Navigation Facilities.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 6030-1, 6030-17, 6790-4, 6790-5.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: FAR Part 171 establishes procedures and requirements
for sponsors, both private and public other than FAA, to purchase,
install, operate, and maintain electronic navaids for use by the flying
public in the National Airspace System (NAS). FAR Part 171 describes
procedures for receiving permission to install a facility and
requirements to be fulfilled to keep it in service. These requirements
include inspection and periodic maintenance. These tasks and any other
repair work done to these facilities is recorded in on-site logs,
copies of which are sent to the Service Center office.
    Respondents: Approximately 2,413 sponsors of non-federal navigation
facilities.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 13.72 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 33,116 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2011.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-30078 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43513-43515]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-3-000]

Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other
Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act;
Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative
Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2021

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other
Federal agencies

(OFAs) \1\ in connection with their participation in the Commission's
proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I \2\ when those
agencies seek to include such costs in the administrative charges
licensees must pay to reimburse the United States for the cost of
administering Part I.\3\ The Commission's Order on Remand and Acting on
Appeals of Annual Charge Bills \4\ determined which costs are eligible
to be included in the administrative annual charges. This order also
established a process whereby the Commission would annually request
each OFA to submit cost data, using a form \5\ specifically designed
for this purpose. In addition, the order established requirements for
detailed cost accounting reports and other documented analyses to
explain the cost assumptions contained in the OFAs' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The OFAs include: the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of the Solicitor, Office of Environmental Policy &
Compliance, Office of Hearings and Appeals, and Office of Policy
Analysis); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service);
the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service);
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a-823d (2018).
    \3\ See id. Sec.  803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2018).
    \4\ 107 FERC ] 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004).
    \5\ Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and
supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture),
and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year (FY)
2021. This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its
administrative annual charges for FY 2022.

Scope of Eligible Costs

    3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the
OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25--User Charges and the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4--Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular
A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government
services and provides specific information on the scope and type of
activities subject to user charges. SFFAS Number 4 provides a
conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs
of government goods and services.
    4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against
recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond
those received by the general public.\6\ With regard to licensees, the
special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to
operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment
of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services
associated with these special benefits.\7\ SFFAS Number 4 defines full
costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental
unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.\8\
Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting
guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge
on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering
Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this
purpose, the ``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,'' captures
the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced
accounting guidance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OMB Circular A-25 Sec.  6.
    \7\ OMB Circular A-25 Sec.  6.a.2.
    \8\ SFFAS Number 4 ] 7.
    \9\ For the past few years, the form has excluded ``Other Direct
Costs'' to avoid the possibility of confusion that occurred in
earlier years as to whether costs were being entered twice as
``Other Direct Costs'' and ``Overhead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals

    5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting
documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce. The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost
submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the
OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to
demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated,
and reported FPA Part I costs as required by the ``Other Federal Agency
Cost Submission Form.''
    6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 24, 2022, to
report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. Representatives for
several licensees and most of the OFAs attended the conference.
Following the technical conference, a transcript was posted, and
licensees had the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission
regarding its initial review.
    7. Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls) filed written comments \10\
raising concerns that the submittals do not contain sufficient
information to determine whether the costs are reasonable as required
by the FPA. Idaho Falls also raises a specific concern regarding the
National Park Service (NPS) individual cost submission. The issues are
addressed in the Appendix to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Michael A. Swiger, Van Ness Feldman, to the
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD22-3-000 (filed April
27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. After additional review, full consideration of the comments
presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the
Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost
submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying
reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the
administrative annual charges for FY 2022.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY22.032

    9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to their participation
in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure 1 summarizes
the reported costs that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2022 administrative
annual charges.

Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review

    10. As presented in Figure 1, the Commission has determined that
$5,623,214 of the $5,658,429 in total reported costs were reasonable
and clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or
analyses. Based on this finding, 1% of the total reported cost was
determined to be unreasonable.
    11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting
reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial
systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an
explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.

Points of Contact

    12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact
Raven Rodriguez at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15598 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37647-37649]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16930]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81327; File No. SR-C2-2017-023]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6.49, C2 Trade Match System

August 7, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 4, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new Rule 6.49 related to its
existing C2 Trade Match System (``CTM'') functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new Rule 6.49 related to its
existing C2 Trade Match System (``CTM'') functionality. CTM is a
systems user interface provided by the Exchange in which authorized
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') may receive copies of trade records
and add and/or update their trade records. Although references to CTM
exist within Regulatory Circulars, the functionality is not currently
described in Exchange rules. The Exchange believes it would be
beneficial to address and provide further detail in its rules regarding
the CTM functionality and permitted uses.
    Post-trade modifications may be effected via the CTM system. A rule
explicitly detailing the modification process and defining what
permitted modifications are allowed does not currently exist in the
Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes it would be useful to
explicitly reference within the rule text the term ``CTM'' and codify
what post trade modifications via CTM are permitted to reduce confusion
and add additional transparency to the rules regarding C2's systems.
    First, the Exchange proposes to explicitly reference and describe
``CTM.'' Specifically, CTM is a system in which authorized TPHs may
enter and report transactions that have been effected on the Exchange
in accordance with Exchange rules or to correct bona fide errors (e.g.,
a situation in which a transaction was incorrectly reported as an
opening transaction). Documentation requirements related to changes
made through the use of CTM will be announced via a Regulatory
Circular.
    By way of background, C2 Rule 6.38 requires that for all
transactions made on the Exchange, TPHs must file with the Exchange
certain trade information \5\ in order to allow the Exchange to
properly match and clear trades. This information is used to provide
the comparison of the two sides (i.e., buy and sell) of a transaction.
When the two sides match, the trade is successfully compared and will
move on to the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for clearance.
For trades that do not match (i.e., trade information from each side do
not match) TPHs and their respective representatives typically make
reasonable efforts to resolve unmatched trades on trade day. The
Exchange notes that CTM may be used

by TPHs to change certain fields on a trade record for which it has
authority to correct, in order to update a trade record or correct an
unmatched field to resolve an out-trade. The Exchange proposes to
codify what post trade modifications via CTM are permitted and further
specify which changes will require notification to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See C2 Rule 6.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first seeks to specify which fields may be changed by
TPHs through the use of CTM without notice to the Exchange. Those
fields are: (1) Executing Firm and Contra Firm; (2) Executing Broker
and Contra Broker; (3) CMTA; \6\ (4) Market-Maker Account and Sub
Account; (5) Customer ID; (6) Position Effect (open/close); (7)
Optional Data; and/or (8) Origin Code (provided the change is not from
a customer origin code to any other origin code). The Exchange notes
that the information contained in these fields does not affect the
terms of a contract or the Consolidated Tape. Rather, the Exchange
views these changes to be non-critical back office changes and as such,
the Exchange does not believe it needs notice from the TPH making the
change. The Exchange also notes that such changes would be captured in
the Exchange's audit trail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under a Clearing Member Trade Agreement (``CMTA''), an
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') clearing member (``carrying
clearing member'') authorizes another clearing member (``executing
clearing member'') to give up the name of the carrying clearing
member with respect to any trade executed on a specific exchange
(i.e., the re-assignment of a trade to a different Clearing firm
occurs post-trade at the OCC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to specify which fields may be changed
by TPHs through the use of CTM that require TPHs to give notice to the
Exchange in a form and manner determined by the Exchange. Specifically,
those fields are: (1) Series; (2) Quantity; (3) Buy or Sell; (4)
Premium Price; and/or (5) Origin Code (if changing origin code from
customer (C) to any other origin code). The Exchange notes that these
fields, with the exception of origin code, do change the terms of the
contract and additionally affect the Consolidated Tape. As such, the
Exchange proposes to require notice and further documentation as to why
such a change is being made in order to monitor such changes, as well
as take the necessary steps to ensure that any such changes are
properly reflected in the Consolidated Tape. As to changes from a
Customer (C) origin code to any other origin code, the Exchange notes
that while such change does not affect the Consolidated Tape or terms
of a contract, such changes may affect other substantive aspects of how
a trade was processed, including whether a trade should have been given
order priority. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that TPHs making
changes to these fields should be required to provide the Exchange
notice and documentation relating to the change. The Exchange proposes
to require that notification of the change be made as soon as
practicable, but, no later than fifteen (15) minutes after the change
has been made. The Exchange notes that it will not be authorizing any
changes prior to the TPH making changes to any of the above-mentioned
fields (i.e., the Exchange will not expressly indicate whether or not a
change identified in a TPH's notice is in conformity with Exchange
rules prior to the change being made). Rather, due to inherent time
constraints, such changes will be reviewed by Exchange personnel after
the fact, and a TPH that is found to have made an improper modification
may be subject to appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with
the Rules of the Exchange as described more fully below.
    The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01
to provide that any action taken by the Exchange pursuant to proposed
Rule 6.49(b) and (c) does not constitute a determination by the
Exchange that the transaction was effected in conformity with Exchange
Rules.\7\ As noted above, any improper change made through CTM shall be
processed and given effect, but the TPH may be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action in accordance with Exchange rules. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that nothing in proposed Rule 6.49 is intended to
define or limit the ability of the Exchange to sanction or take other
remedial action pursuant to other Exchange rules for rule violations or
other activity for which remedial measures may be proposed. The
Exchange notes that given the inherent time constraints in making
various changes to exchange transactions, the Exchange would not be
able to adequately consider the above-mentioned requirements and make a
determination within the time required as to whether a change was
improper or not. As such the Exchange will not prevent any changes from
being processed and given effect, but will review such changes after
the fact to ensure compliance with Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, if the Exchange provides a TPH the ability to
make a change via CTM, such action should not be construed as a
determination by the Exchange that the transaction proposed is in
conformity with Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange views CTM as an important tool that allows TPHs to
receive copies of trade records and add and/or update trade records.
The Exchange believes CTM provides TPHs an effective mechanism to make
such changes and reconcile out-trades due to bona fide errors, thereby
removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protecting investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange also believes that clearly defining in the rules
existing system functionality (i.e., CTM) provides additional
transparency in the rules and provides market participants an
additional avenue to easily understand the system and processes C2
offers. The Exchange believes additional transparency removes a
potential impediment to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that requiring certain changes made through the CTM system allows the
Exchange to receive from TPHs information in a uniform format, which
aids the Exchange's efforts to monitor and regulate C2 and TPHs and
helps prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices.

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are
designed to not permit unfair discrimination among market participants.
For example all TPHs may request access to CTM. Additionally, all TPHs
will be subject to the same limitations as to the permitted uses of CTM
functionality.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
proposed Rule 6.49 will promote competition by making the CTM
functionality more understandable to users and the general public. The
Exchange believes that by better explaining its CTM functionality to
TPHs and codifying the permitted uses of CTM, TPHs will better
understand the Exchange's systems. The Exchange believes that
additional clarity and transparency in the Rules will make it easier
for market participants to compete with one another on equal footing in
the markets and ultimately benefits all investors.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-C2-2017-023 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-C2-2017-023. 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-C2-2017-023 and should be
submitted on or before September 1, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16930 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20320-20321]
[DOCID:fr19ap10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0285; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-23]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Smithfield, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Smithfield,
NC, to accommodate the additional airspace needed for the Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) developed for Johnston County
Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2010-0285; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-23, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0285; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. FAA-2010-0285; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-23.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at
Smithfield, NC to provide controlled airspace required to support the
SIAPs for Johnston County Airport. The existing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified for
the safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in

Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Johnston County
Airport, Smithfield, NC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE
AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Smithfield, NC [Amended]

Johnston County Airport, NC
    (Lat. 35[deg]32'27'' N., long. 78[deg]23'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Johnston County Airport and within 2
miles each side of the 023[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.2 miles northeast of the Johnston
County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 9, 2010.

    Signed By:
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-8855 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7365-7366]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03778]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0031; FRL-9988-44-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners
(EPA ICR Number 0997.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0079), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2019. Public
comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on June
29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0031, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum
Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ) apply to the following
existing and new facilities located at a petroleum dry cleaning plant
with a total manufacturers' rated dryer capacity equal to or greater
than 38 kilograms (84 pounds): Petroleum solvent dry cleaning dryers,
washers, filters, stills, and settling tanks. In general, NSPS
standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and
periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.
They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are generally
considered essential in determining compliance, and are required of all
affected facilities subject to NSPS. For this source category, only
recordkeeping and initial notifications and reports are considered
essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum dry cleaners.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 20 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 1,850 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $202,000 (per year), which includes $0 for
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the burden in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:
(1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are
not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for the industry is estimated to remain the same as for the last
ICR, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-03778 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 53010-53012]
[DOCID:fr30au10-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62760; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating to Trade Reporting

August 24, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 10, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Exchange Options Floor Procedure
Advice (``OFPA'') F-2 Allocation, Time Stamping, Matching and Access to
Matched Trades, and Exchange Rule 1051, General Comparison and
Clearance Rule, to state that late reports of transactions in complex
spread transactions executed in open outcry may be considered
``exceptional circumstances'' under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify certain
factors that the Exchange may consider to be ``exceptional
circumstances'' when determining whether an Exchange member has engaged
in a pattern or practice of late trade reporting.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposal is not intended to limit the Exchange to these
factors in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, OFPA F-2 and Rule 1051 require a member or member
organization initiating an options transaction, whether acting as
principal or agent, to report or ensure that the transaction is
reported within 90 seconds of the execution to the tape. Each also
states that a pattern or practice of late reporting without exceptional
circumstances may be considered conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade.
    The Exchange proposes to modify OFPA F-2 and Rule 1051 to state
that, in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the
Exchange may consider late reports resulting from open outcry
executions in: (i) A hedge order (as defined in Rule 1066(f)); \6\ (ii)

a synthetic option (as defined in Rule 1066(g)); \7\ or (ii) any other
order consisting of multiple option and/or stock components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 1066(f) defines a hedge order is any spread type order
(including a spread, straddle and combination order) for the same
account or tied hedge order as defined below:
    (1) Spread Order. A spread order is an order to buy a stated
number of option contracts and to sell a stated number of option
contracts in a different series of the same option and may be bid
for or offered on a total net debit or credit basis.
    (A) Inter-Currency Spread Order. In the case of foreign currency
options, a spread order may consist of an order to buy a stated
number of option contracts in one foreign currency and to sell the
same number of option contracts in a different foreign currency
option.
    (2) Straddle Order. A straddle order is an order to buy a number
of call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts
with respect to the same underlying security (in the case of options
on a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the same underlying
foreign currency (in the case of options on a foreign currency) and
having the same exercise price and expiration date; or an order to
sell a number of call option contracts and the same number of put
option contracts with respect to the same underlying security (in
the case of options on a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the
same underlying foreign currency (in the case of options on a
foreign currency) and having the same exercise price and expiration
date (e.g., an order to buy two XYZ July 50 calls and to buy two XYZ
July 50 puts is a straddle order). In the case of adjusted stock
option contracts, a straddle order need not consist of the same
number of put and call contracts if such contracts both represent
the same number of shares at option.
    (3) Combination Order. A combination order is an order involving
a number of call option contracts and the same number of put option
contracts in the same underlying security and representing the same
number of shares at option (if the underlying security is a stock or
Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the same number of foreign currency
units (if the underlying security is a foreign currency). A
combination order includes a conversion (generally, buying a put,
selling a call and buying the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded
Fund Share) and a reversal (generally, selling a put, buying a call
and selling the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share). In
the case of adjusted option contracts, a combination order need not
consist of the same number of shares at option.
    (4) Tied Hedge Order. A tied hedge order is an option order that
is tied to a hedge transaction as defined in Commentary .04 to Rule
1064, following the receipt of an option order in a class determined
by the Exchange as eligible for ``tied hedge'' transactions.
    A tied hedge order involves buying or selling a stock, security
futures or futures position following receipt of an option order,
including a complex order, but prior to announcing such order to the
trading crowd, provided that certain conditions are met. See Rule
1064, Commentary .04.
    \7\ Rule 1066(g) defines a synthetic option order as an order to
buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a
security convertible into the underlying stock (``convertible
security'') coupled with either (i) the purchase or sale of option
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either
the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security or the number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security necessary to create a delta neutral position,
or (ii) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call
option contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration
date, and each representing the same number of units of stock as,
and on the opposite side of the market from, the stock or
convertible security portion of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, in order to establish whether a member or member
organization has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating a
specific order handling rule the Exchange may aggregate, or ``batch,''
individual violations of order handling OFPAs, and consider such
``batched'' violations as a single occurrence of a violation by a
member or member organization over a specific time period.\8\ Late
trade reporting is currently included in the Exchange's ``batching''
program. The Exchange has observed that a disproportionate number of
late trade reports are due to transactions in complex spread
transactions executed in open outcry.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exchange Rule 970.01 states that, for purposes of imposing
fines under the Options Floor Procedure Advices (``OFPAs''), when
the number of violations under Exchange Rules is determined based
upon an exception-based surveillance program the Exchange may
aggregate, or ``batch,'' individual violations of order handling
OFPAs, and consider such ``batched'' violations as a single
Occurrence only in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the
Exchange's Numerical Criteria for Bringing Cases for Violations of
Phlx Order Handling Rules. In addition, the Exchange may batch
individual violations of Rule 1014(c)(i)(A) pertaining to quote
spread parameters (and corresponding Options Floor Procedure Advice
F-6). In the alternative, the Exchange may refer the matter to the
Business Conduct Committee for possible disciplinary action when (i)
the Exchange determines that there exists a pattern or practice of
violative conduct without exceptional circumstances, or (ii) any
single instance of violative conduct without exceptional
circumstances is deemed to be so egregious that referral to the
Business Conduct Committee for possible disciplinary action is
appropriate.
    \9\ This proposal applies only to executions in open outcry, and
not to complex orders executed and reported automatically by the
Exchange's Complex Order System. See Exchange Rule 1080.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hedge orders and synthetic options are presented as a single order
[sic] in the crowd, often including multiple option and/or stock
components, on a net debit or credit basis. It is not unusual for the
individual components of such an order to be executed at different
times (especially in situations involving the execution of a stock
component on an away equity market). Therefore, some components of the
order may be executed while other components are pending execution. In
many cases execution of the entire hedge or synthetic option order
takes longer than 90 seconds to complete, resulting in late reporting
for the individual components upon completion of the entire order at
the net debit or credit price.
    The Exchange believes that the inclusion of late trade reporting
violations in the ``batch'' of violations respecting hedge or synthetic
order transactions in open outcry unfairly penalizes a member or member
organization engaging in legitimate hedge and synthetic option orders
and thus proposes, when determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist, to consider late reports of transactions in such orders executed
in open outcry to be ``exceptional circumstances'' under the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ 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 proposal
benefits customers by encouraging Exchange Floor Brokers, market makers
and specialists to introduce and/or participate in legitimate complex
transactions in open outcry without being penalized for late trade
reporting in the specific instances described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding 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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-112 on the subject line.

Paper comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-112. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-112 and should be
submitted on or before September 20, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21474 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P