Response to Comments Document for Final Rule concerning the use of
ASTM D6550-05 as an alternative test method for olefin content of gasoline

On January 31, 2011, EPA proposed to allow ASTM D6550-05 (SFC) as an alternative to the designated test method, ASTM D1319-03[ε1] (FIA), for measuring olefin content of gasoline, provided the results are correlated to ASTM D1319-03[ε1] using a site-specific correlation of FIA (volume percent) versus SFC (weight percent).  The Agency also proposed that correlation be completed on a site-specific basis.  To ensure a proper site-specific correlation, the gasoline fuel set used to develop the correlation shall span the range of the olefin properties representative of that refinery's or importer's gasoline production.  This gasoline fuel set would be analyzed by the test facility's laboratory using both ASTM D1319-03[ε1] (also known as FIA, or the designated test method) and ASTM D6550-05.   A resulting correlation equation would then be developed in terms of ASTM D1319-03[ε1] in volume percent and ASTM D6550-05 in weight percent.  Thus, the applicable range of the resulting correlation from a facility's site specific correlation would be consistent with that specific facility's olefin content range.  In response to this proposed rule, EPA received five comments from the American Petroleum Institute (API), BP America Incorporated (BP), the National Petroleum and Refiners Association (NPRA), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and Shell Oil Products U.S. (SOPUS).  All comments were in support of the proposal.
       The following is a brief summary of additional comments provided by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National Petroleum and Refiners Association (NPRA), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and Shell Oil Products US (SOPUS) and EPA's responses to them.
 Comments:
       API, NPRA and SOPUS also recommended that EPA update its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2010 year version of both ASTM D1319 and ASTM D6550.
 Response:
       EPA will undertake this issue in a future rulemaking.
 Comments:
       WSPA commented that a refinery may choose to have neither of the test methods (ASTM D1319 or ASTM D6550) in its laboratory if it is relying on a third party commercial laboratory to conduct 100 percent of its certification testing.  WSPA asked EPA for clarification that a third party laboratory may assist a refinery laboratory in its development and maintenance of the required correlation using samples from the specified refinery.
 Response:
       EPA believes in the case where a refinery or importer may be relying on a third party commercial laboratory to conduct its certification testing, it would be acceptable for the third party commercial laboratory to assist the refinery or importer in the development and maintenance of the required correlation using samples from that specific refinery.  In addition, although not the subject of this rulemaking, EPA intends to establish a performance-based test method approach (PBTMA) rule which would provide criteria for the qualification of alternative test methods.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 9, 2007

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1997-2828

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Air Pacific Limited (Air Pacific) 				Date Filed: June 18,
2007

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled,  combination services
between Nadi, Fiji, and the two U.S. coterminal points Los Angeles,
California, and Honolulu, Hawaii, via Auckland, New Zealand, and beyond
the two U.S. coterminal points to, and from, the two Canadian coterminal
points Toronto and Vancouver.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  July 6, 2006, in this
docket

Applicant representative: Evelyn D. Sahr & Katherine G. Ovalle  (202)
659-6600

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  July 9, 2007

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  July 9, 2007 – July
9, 2008

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity). United States-Fiji
Air Transport Agreement.  The authority to serve Toronto, however, is
based on the existence of adequate reciprocity with Fiji.

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

   X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)               X
Foreign air carrier permit   (Order 81-4-93)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and 36 and 49 CFR Part 1546 or
1550, as applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign
airport that would be the holder’s last point of departure for the
United States, contact its International Principal Security Inspector
(IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the
Transportation Security Administration has determined that security is
adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

11/2006


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10175-10177]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03822]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74311; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2015-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Limit
Up-Limit Down Obvious Error Pilot

February 19, 2015.
    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 February 19, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ISE Gemini proposes to extend a pilot program under Rule 703A(d)
that suspends Rule 720 regarding obvious errors during Limit and
Straddle States in securities that underlie options traded on the
Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 703A(d), which was adopted as part of the Exchange's Form 1
application for registration as a national securities exchange,\3\ is
designed to address certain issues related to the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
under the Act (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan'').\4\
Specifically, pursuant to a pilot program adopted under Rule 703A(d),
the Exchange excludes transactions executed during a Limit State \5\ or
Straddle State \6\ from the obvious error provisions of Rule 720. The
purpose of this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the pilot
program to coincide with the proposed extension of the Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan to October 23, 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Securities and Exchange Commission granted the
Exchange's application for registration as a national securities
exchange on July 26, 2013. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
Release No. 70050 (July 26, 2013), 78 FR 46622 (Aug. 1, 2013).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \5\ The term ``Limit State'' means the condition when the
national best bid or national best offer for an underlying security
equals an applicable price band, as determined by the primary
listing exchange for the underlying security. See Rule 703A.
    \6\ The term ``Straddle State'' means the condition when the
national best bid or national best offer for an underlying security
is non-executable, as determined by the primary listing exchange for
the underlying security, but the security is not in a Limit State.
See Rule 703A.
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 74110 (January 21, 2015), 80 FR
4321 (January 27, 2015) (Eighth Amendment to the Limit-Up Limit-Down
Plan). The Exchange notes that the current text of Rule 703A
mistakenly states a pilot period end date of April 8, 2014, which
was the prior end date selected by the options exchanges for this
industry wide initiative. The Exchange has maintained compliance
with Rule 703A, including by submitting applicable pilot reports
subsequent to this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from this
provision should continue on a pilot basis. The Exchange continues to
believe that adding certainty to the execution of orders in Limit or
Straddle States will encourage market participants to continue to
provide liquidity to the Exchange, and, thus, promote a fair and
orderly market during these periods. Barring this provision, the
obvious error provisions of Rule 720 would likely apply in many
instances during Limit and Straddle States. The Exchange believes that
continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated
consequences in the options markets during a Limit or Straddle State.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the protections of current rule should
continue while the industry gains further experience operating the
Plan.
    In connection with this proposed extension, each month the Exchange
shall provide to the Commission, and the public, a dataset containing
the data for each Straddle and Limit State in optionable stocks that
had at least one trade on the Exchange. For each trade on the Exchange,
the Exchange will provide (a) the stock symbol, option symbol, time at
the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it
is a Straddle or Limit State, and (b) for the trades on the Exchange,
the executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted
average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at
the offer, high execution price, low execution price, number of trades
for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle
and Limit States, an indicator variable for whether those options
outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying
stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option
price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle
State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator
variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the
underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if
applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or
Straddle State.
    In addition, the Exchange will provide to the Commission, and the
public, no later than May 29, 2015, assessments relating to the impact
of the operation of the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle
States including: (1) An evaluation of the statistical and economic
impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in
the options markets, and (2) an assessment of whether the lack of
obvious error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are
problematic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange further believes that it is necessary
and appropriate in the interest of promoting fair and orderly markets
to exclude transactions executed during a Limit or Straddle State from
certain aspects of Rule 720. The Exchange believes the application of
the current rule will be impracticable given the lack of a reliable
national best bid or offer in the options market during Limit and
Straddle States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., nullified trades
or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions.
Extension of this pilot would ensure that limit orders that are filled
during a Limit or Straddle State would have certainty of execution in a
manner that promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system. Thus, the Exchange believes that the
protections of the pilot should continue while the industry gains
further experience operating the Plan.

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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the pilot, the proposed
rule change will allow for further analysis of the pilot and a
determination of how the pilot shall be structured in the future. In
doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The

Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members
or other interested parties.

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

    Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue
uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating
under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from
a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-05. 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 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-05, and
should be submitted on or before March 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03822 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P