[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42030-42032]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13618]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0214; FRL-10875-02-R7]

Air Plan Approval; State of Missouri; Confidential Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the State of Missouri. This final action will amend the SIP to approve
a revision submitted by the State of Missouri on September 20, 2022, to
the existing state rule, ``Confidential Information.'' These revisions
include structural, formatting and other text changes that are
administrative in nature and do not impact the stringency of the SIP or
air quality. The EPA's approval of this rule revision is in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0214. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. 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 through www.regulations.gov or
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Brown, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7718; email address: [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of
Missouri on September 20, 2022. Missouri requested the EPA approve
revisions to 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.210 in the
Missouri SIP. The state has revised the rule and made structural,
formatting, and text changes to correct typographical errors. After
review and analysis of the revisions, the EPA concluded that these
changes do not have adverse effects on air quality. The full text of
these changes can be found in the State's submission, which is included
in the docket for this action. The EPA's analysis of the revisions can
be found in the technical support document (TSD), also included in the
docket.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from 02/15/2022 to 4/
07/2022 and received one comment from a Missouri staff member
pertaining to a definition change. The EPA's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and supporting information contained in the docket
were made available for public comment from May 8, 2023, to June 7,
2023 (88 FR 29596). The EPA received one comment in support of
approval, which is included in the docket.
    In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD,
which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by
approving the State's revisions to rule 10 CSR 10-6.210 ``Confidential
Information.'' Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency
between State and federally approved rules. As described in the NPRM
(88 FR 29596), and the TSD, the EPA has determined that these changes
meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and will not adversely
impact air quality or the stringency of the SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, and as described and set forth below in the amendments to
40 CFR part 52, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.210--Confidential Information, with a
local effective date of September 30, 2022, which provides procedures
and conditions for handling confidential Information. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''

    Missouri did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 2023. 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: June 21 2023.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.210'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        Missouri citation                 Title         effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.210.........................  Confidential              9/30/2022  6/29/2023, [insert
                                    Information.                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-13618 Filed 6-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79172-79173]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32648]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9608-9]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby
given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by
WildEarth Guardians in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona: WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, No. 2:11-cv-01661-
ROS (D. Ariz.). On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint
alleging that EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to
promulgate the area designations for the 2008 ground-level ozone NAAQS
within the time lines set forth in section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA. The
proposed consent decree establishes a deadline of May 31, 2012 for EPA
to take action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2011-0935, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Tierney, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking to
compel the Administrator to promulgate area designations for the 2008
ground-level ozone NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA.
The proposed consent decree requires that no later than May 31, 2012,
EPA shall sign a notice of the Agency's promulgation of area
designations for the 2008 ground-level ozone NAAQS pursuant to section
107(d) of the CAA, and within 10 business days following signature of
the notice, EPA will send the notice to the Federal Register for review
and publication. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the decree,
the parties shall file a joint request to the Court to terminate the
consent decree.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-0935) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Patricia Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-32648 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71999-72000]
[DOCID:fr19de07-148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4470]

Pipeline Safety: Meetings of the Pipeline Safety Standards
Advisory Committees and a Public Workshop

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings and workshop.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces public meetings of PHMSA's Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and Technical Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The Committees
will meet in a joint session to discuss PHMSA's regulatory agenda and
strategic plan. In conjunction with the advisory committee meetings,
PHMSA will hold a public workshop.
    PHMSA will hold a half day public workshop to gather comments on
the use of the special permit process to allow transmission pipeline
operators to vary from the 7-year reassessment interval in integrity
management programs. Specifically, special permits would allow
operators to tailor their reassessment intervals, based on pipe
specific threats. PHMSA will ask for feedback on criteria developed for
use in special permits.

DATES: The TPSSC and the THLPSSC will meet on Thursday, January 17,
from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST. The public meeting on special permit
consideration and criteria discussion for 7-year reassessments will be
on Friday, January 18, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be at the Hotel Palomar Arlington, 1121
North 19th Street, Arlington, VA 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Technical Advisory Committee Meetings: Cheryl Whetsel
(202) 366-4431<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Public Workshop on Special Permit Consideration and
Criteria Discussion for 7-Year Reassessments: Zach Barrett (405) 954-
5559<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Meeting Details

    Members of the public may attend and may make a statement during
the advisory committee meetings or during the public workshop. If you
plan to make a statement please notify the relevant contact under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION by January 9. Please note the meetings' presiding
officer may deny a nonscheduled request to make a statement and may
also limit the time of any speaker.
    Comments should reference Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4470 (advisory
committee) or Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-2000-7666 (7-year reassessment
workshop). Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site

allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; Room W12-140,
on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket ID, at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov. including any

personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for additional information.
    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our

dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Cheryl Whetsel before January 2.

II. Committee Background

    The TPSSC and the THLPSSC are advisory committees mandated by
statute to advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments,
and safety policies for natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
These advisory committees are established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the pipeline safety
law (49 U.S.C. chap. 601). Each committee consists of 15 members, five
each representing government, industry, and the public. The TPSSC and
the THLPSSC determine the reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and
practicability of each proposed safety standard. The committees also
evaluate the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment information on
each proposal.

III. Preliminary Meeting Schedules

    Joint Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committees
    Thursday, January 17 (1 p.m. to 5 p.m.)
    The TPSSC and THLPSSC will meet to introduce new members and to
discuss their roles and responsibilities. They will also discuss
PHMSA's 2008 regulatory agenda and plans to carry out the DOT and PHMSA
strategic plans.

Special Permit Consideration and Criteria Discussion for 7-Year
Reassessments Friday, January 18 (8 a.m.-12 p.m.)

    Integrity management regulations applicable to gas transmission
pipelines required all operators to do a baseline assessment of
pipelines. PHMSA will hold a public workshop to gather comments on the
use of a special permit to allow certain transmission pipeline
operators to tailor reassessment intervals, based on pipe specific
threats, instead of using the 7-year mandatory reassessment required
now. PHMSA will ask for feedback on criteria developed for these
special permits.
    PHMSA will post more detailed agendas and any additional
information or changes on its Web page (http://phmsa.dot.gov)

approximately 15 days before the meeting date.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115; 60118.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 14, 2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 07-6099 Filed 12-14-07; 2:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

06/15/2007 08:19 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Langstaff/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Stephen Graham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McDonald/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: draft ozone NPR -- through section II.B.1 -- pdf file

Art, Rob and Margo,

Please find attached a pdf file that contains the redline version of our response to interagency comments on most of sections A and B on the primary standard.  The only part missing is the discussion of the risk assessment, which we plan to send to you tomorrow morning.  At or around that time we will also send you the redline of the comparable sections for the secondary standard.  We hope to send you the sections on adequacy and elements of the primary standard, including level, on Sunday evening.  We plan at that time to send as well the adequacy and level sections on the secondary standard.

Please let me know if you have any questions.  I believe you all have my phone numbers, but I'll also be checking my Blackberry regularly.

Lydia

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 06/15/2007 08:11PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 06/15/2007 08:01PM

cc: Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Stone Susan@EPA, Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Hannon John@EPA

Subject: draft ozone NPR -- through section II.B.1 -- pdf file

This is the redline version (compared to the May 22 interagency workgroup draft) in pdf.

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7596-7597]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4054-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Alaska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4054-DR), dated February 2,
2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 2, 2012, the President issued a

major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alaska resulting from a severe storm during the period of
November 15-17, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Alaska.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Alaska have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The Kenai Peninsula Borough for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Alaska are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-3207 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32145-32146]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 24, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1044-001.
    Applicants: Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company.
    Description: Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company submits
Original Sheet No 1 to Eighth Revised FERC Rate Schedule No 2 et al.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1309-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits revisions to its FERC Electric
Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No 11.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1310-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits updated Exhibit 1 to the Amended
and Restated Facilities Rental and Wheeling Agreement between
PacifiCorp and Moon Lake Electric Association.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1311-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits Notice of Termination of
Service Agreement No 38 etc.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1312-000.
    Applicants: Riverside Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Riverside Energy Center, LLC submits revised Rate
Schedule FERC No 2.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1313-000.
    Applicants: RockGen Energy LLC.
    Description: RockGen Energy, LLC submits revised Rate Schedule FERC
No 3.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1343-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised pages to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff to implement rate changes for Westar
Energy, Inc and Oklahoma Gas & Electric, which are transmission owners
and pricing zones etc.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1344-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Motion of NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC.
Requesting Limited Waiver of Forward Capacity Auction Qualification
Rules.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1345-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits for filing
changes under Volume 6--Service Agreement et al. to Rate Schedule FERC
No 466 et al.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1346-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC requests limited one-time
waivers of certain provisions of the Reliability Assurance Agreement
among Load-Serving Entities in the PJM Region etc.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090624-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1347-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Motion for Limited Waiver and Request for Shortened
Comment Period and Expedited Treatment of Mirant Energy Trading, LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090623-5122.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 07, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15864 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 49299]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78386; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-79)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Virtus
Japan Alpha ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600

July 21, 2016.
    On May 24, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 9, 2016.\3\ On June 20, 2016, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77992 (Jun. 3, 2016)
81 FR 37222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is July 24, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
September 7, 2016, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17672 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55371-55372]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2014-0382; FMCSA-2015-0115]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for three
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on June 10, 2019. The exemptions
expire on June 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,

Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0381 or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0382 or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2015-0115 and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On July 15, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for three individuals from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (84 FR
33800). The public comment period ended on August 14, 2019, and two
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. These comments
supported granting the exemptions.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the three renewal exemption applications
and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the
following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition
in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    As of June 10, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers: Monte
J. DeRocini (PA); Teddy H. Dixon (GA); and Bryan R. Jones (PA).
    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-
2014-0382; and FMCSA-2015-0115. Their exemptions are applicable as of
June 10, 2019, and will expire on June 10, 2021.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

     Issued on: October 4, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-22504 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 76439-76440]
[DOCID:fr16de08-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-04-19477]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 14, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before January 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-04-19477, using any of the
following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 13 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 13 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Johnny Becerra
Ross E. Burroughs
Lester W. Carter
Christopher L. DePuy
John B. Ethridge
Larry J. Folkerts
Paul W. Hunter
Ray P. Lenz
Michael B. McClure
Francis M. McMullin
Norman Mullins
Harold W. Mumford
David J. Triplett

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2705; 72 FR 1056). Each of these 13
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 14, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 13 individuals from the vision
requirement in49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 8, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-29689 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45325-45329]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81683; File No. SR-CHX-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Qualified Contingent
Trades and Related Information Recording Obligations by Certain
Participants

September 22, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On July 26, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change regarding Qualified Contingent
Trades (``QCT(s)'') and related recordkeeping obligations for certain
Exchange participants. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 10, 2017.\4\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81315 (August 4,
2017), 82 FR 37479 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange permits its participants to submit to the Exchange
cross orders marked with a QCT modifier (sometimes referred to as ``QCT
crosses'') to effect transactions that comprise the NMS stock component
of a QCT.\5\ QCT crosses are submitted to

the Exchange consistent with an exemption from Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS \6\ that the Commission granted in 2006 and modified in
2008 (the ``QCT Exemption'').\7\ As described below, the Exchange
proposes to amend its rules relating to QCTs to permit only
Institutional Brokers (``IB(s)'') \8\ to effect such transactions on
the Exchange, to impose additional recordkeeping requirements relating
to such transactions, and to make additional, clarifying changes to its
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 37480. A QCT is ``a transaction consisting of two
or more component orders, executed as agent or principal where: (1)
At least one component order is in an NMS stock; (2) all components
are effected with a product or price contingency that either has
been agreed to by the respective counterparties or arranged for by a
broker-dealer as principal or agent; (3) the execution of one
component is contingent upon the execution of all other components
at or near the same time; (4) the specific relationship between the
component orders (e.g., the spread between the prices of the
component orders) is determined at the time the contingent order is
placed; (5) the component orders bear a derivative relationship to
one another, represent different classes of shares of the same
issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers or with
intentions to merge that have been announced or since cancelled; and
(6) the transaction is fully hedged (without regard to any prior
existing position) as a result of the other components of the
contingent trade. See id. at 37480; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57620 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008)
(``2008 QCT Exemptive Order'').
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.611(a).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006); see also 2008 QCT Exemptive
Order, supra note 5.
    \8\ Article 1, Rule 1(n) defines an IB as a member of the
Exchange that is registered as an IB pursuant to Article 17 of the
Exchange's rules and has satisfied all Exchange requirements to
operate as an IB. For the sake of clarity, the Commission notes
that, unless otherwise specified, references herein to ``Article''
and ``Rule'' are references to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. QCT Crosses May Only Be Submitted by IBs

    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E) to
provide that QCT crosses may be submitted to the Exchange only by
registered IBs.\9\ Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2) sets forth the order
execution modifiers that may be attributed to cross orders, and Article
1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E) defines the QCT cross order modifier.\10\ Under the
proposal, this definition would be amended to state that only IBs may
utilize the QCT cross order modifier.\11\ The Exchange notes that,
currently, CHX rules permit any Exchange participant to submit QCT
crosses, but in practice non-IB participants do not submit them.\12\
The Exchange also notes that its rules currently require only IBs to
input all orders and related information into Brokerplex--an automated
Exchange order and trade management system--and that this requirement
facilitates the Exchange's ability to gather information it considers
to be crucial to its review of QCT crosses executed on the
Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E).
    \10\ See Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2).
    \11\ See proposed Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E). The Exchange also
proposes to add the acronym ``QCT'' to Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E) to
make clear that the acronym refers to ``Qualified Contingent
Trade.'' See id.; see also Notice, supra note 4, at 37481 n.25.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37480 n.12 and 37481.
    \13\ See id. at 37480-81; see also Article 17, Rules 3 and 5
(describing, among other things, Brokerplex and certain IB
obligations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Recordkeeping Requirements for Away Component Trades of QCT Crosses

    The CHX Broker Back Office System (``BBOS'') is an Exchange-
maintained trade management system that, among other things, enables
the Exchange to review information to identify the specific component
transactions on away exchanges that are being used to hedge QCT crosses
executed on the Exchange.\14\ Currently, the Exchange encourages, but
does not require, IBs to input into BBOS certain information for away
QCT component orders and trades related to QCT crosses executed on the
Exchange.\15\ Moreover, Article 11, Rule 3(a)(1)-(3), which sets forth
recordkeeping obligations for certain Exchange participants, including
IBs, does not currently impose recordkeeping obligations on Exchange
participants regarding such away component orders and trades of QCT
crosses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37480. The Exchange notes
that, currently, the vast majority of such component transactions
involve exchange-traded options. See Notice, supra note 4, at 37480
n.17.
    \15\ See id. at 37482.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed several interrelated amendments to
Article 11, Rule 3 to require IBs to maintain their own records of, and
record with the Exchange, certain information regarding away QCT
component orders and trades. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
adopt new Rule 3(a)(4), which would make subject to the Rule 3(a)
recordkeeping requirements every component order and trade, whether
handled by the Exchange participant or not, related to a cross order
marked QCT that is submitted by the Exchange participant and executed
within the Exchange matching system.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Article 11, Rule 3(a)(4). Article 11, Rule
3(a) requires covered Exchange participants to preserve a record,
meeting the criteria of paragraph (b), of the information enumerated
in Rule 3(a) for at least three years (or any longer period of time
required by SEC Rule 17a-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 3(b) to include a
cross reference to proposed Rule 3(a)(4), and would thereby require
that, subject to exceptions set out in interpretations to Rule 3, IBs
accurately record in an electronic system designated by the Exchange
certain details regarding the away component orders and executions
identified in proposed Rule 3(a)(4).\18\ The Exchange proposes to set
forth these details in new Rule 3(b)(27), which would provide that,
with respect to any cross order marked QCT that is submitted by the
Exchange participant and executed within the Exchange matching system,
the date and time of receipt by the Exchange participant of the
corresponding order from its customer and all information specified by
the Exchange regarding any related component orders and trades executed
within the matching system or away shall be entered into BBOS (as
applicable), in a manner prescribed by the Exchange.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Article 11, Rule 3(b). The Exchange also
proposes to add the word ``accurately'' to the Rule 3(b) text so
that the rule requires covered participants to accurately record the
specified information in the designated Exchange system(s). See id.
    \19\ See proposed Article 11, Rule 3(b)(27); see also proposed
Article 17, Rule 7(c) (specifying the information regarding related
component orders and trades to be entered into the BBOS). The
Exchange also proposes to relocate the current rule text in Article
11, Rule 3(b)(27) to proposed Article 11, Rule 3(b)(28).
Correspondingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the cross references
in Interpretations and Policies paragraph .06 of Article 11, Rule 3
to reflect this relocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has proposed amendments to Article 17
that dovetail with its proposed changes to Article 11, Rule 3. The
Exchange proposes to amend Article 17, Rule 3(a) to state that an IB
must enter all orders it receives for execution and any other
information required under Article 11 into an automated system approved
by the Exchange.\20\ The Exchange states that this proposed change is
necessary to broaden the scope of Article 17, Rule 3(a) beyond just
orders received by the IB for execution to reflect that proposed
Article 11, Rule 3(b)(27) may require the recording of information
related to orders that the IB did not actually receive or otherwise
handle.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange also proposes to amend the title of Rule 3(a)
to reflect that it requires the entry of orders and related
information into an automated system. See proposed Article 17, Rule
3(a); see also Notice, supra note 4, at 37482.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Article 17, Rule 7, which
would codify the BBOS into the Exchange's rules.\22\ Specifically,
proposed Rule 7(a) would state that the BBOS is a trade management
system developed and maintained by the Exchange that permits IBs to
input certain information and to generate reports therefrom, and that
it also is an automated system approved by the Exchange for the
purposes of amended Article 17, Rule 3(a).\23\ Proposed Rule 7(b) would
state

that users of the BBOS are responsible for entering all transactional,
order and other information into the system as required by CHX Rules,
in an accurate, timely and complete manner; the Exchange, as the
operator of BBOS, retains information entered into BBOS on behalf of
the user in conformity with applicable rules and regulations; and the
Exchange will provide such information to IBs in a format designated by
the Exchange to assist IBs in conducting research regarding their own
trading activities, responding to requests for information from
customers, regulatory authorities or by process of law, and for other
legitimate business purposes.\24\ Further, proposed Rule 7(b) would
state that the Exchange charges IBs the fees specified in its published
Schedule of Fees and Assessments for the collection and retrieval of
such information.\25\ Proposed Rule 7(c) would list the specific
information regarding component orders and trades related to QCT
crosses that IBs are required to enter into the BBOS, as applicable.
Specifically, proposed Rule 7(c) would provide that for all orders and
trades described under amended Article 11, Rule 3(b)(27), IBs must
record the following information into the BBOS, as applicable: (1) QCT
Type; (2) Related Exchange; (3) Print Time; (4) Expiration Year; (5)
Expiration Month; (6) Price; (7) Contracts; (8) Strike Price; (9) Call/
Put; (10) Volume; and (11) Short Sale Indicator.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Article 17, Rule 7.
    \23\ See proposed Article 17, Rule 7(a).
    \24\ See proposed Article 17, Rule 7(b).
    \25\ See id. The Exchange states that it is not proposing to
assess a fee for use of the BBOS in addition to the current fees
related to costs incurred by the Exchange in creating any requested
reports, which shall be rebilled to Exchange participants at cost.
See Notice, supra note 4, at 37482 n.38.
    \26\ See proposed Article 17, Rule 7(c). The Exchange notes that
this required information would be identical to the current data
fields available in the BBOS. See Notice, supra note 4, at 37482
n.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Clarification Regarding IB Trading Accounts

    Currently, Article 17, Rule 3(c) provides that each IB must
maintain separate accounts for handling agency transactions, principal
transactions, and transactions involving errors, and must enter
transactions into the appropriate accounts.\27\ The Exchange states it
is proposing to amend this rule to clarify that the required accounts
relate to special recordkeeping accounts that must be maintained at the
Exchange, which, the Exchange represents, is necessary for the Exchange
to adequately surveil and examine the relevant IB trading activity, as
well as to provide additional detail as to the types of transactions
that must be recorded in the respective accounts.\28\ Accordingly, the
Exchange has proposed to amend Article 17, Rule 3(c) to state that each
IB must establish and maintain separate CHX recordkeeping accounts at
the Exchange for the sole purpose of recording the following activity:
(1) An agency recordkeeping account for agency transactions; (2) a
principal recordkeeping account for principal and riskless principal
transactions; and (3) an error recordkeeping account for transactions
involving only bona fide errors.\29\ The proposed rule also would state
that an IB must record each above-mentioned transaction into the
appropriate CHX recordkeeping account.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Article 17, Rule 3(c); see also Notice, supra note 4,
at 37482.
    \28\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37482.
    \29\ See proposed Article 17, Rule 3(c).
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Proposed Rule Clarifications--Article 11, Rule 3

    The Exchange proposes various clarifying amendments to Article 11,
Rule 3 regarding certain recordkeeping requirements concerning orders
and executions by certain types of Exchange participants, including,
but not limited to, IBs.\31\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Article 11, Rule 3(a) to state that the provisions of Rule 3 only
apply to the Exchange participants described in paragraph (e) of the
rule--namely, registered IBs and registered market makers, as well as
any Exchange participant for which the Exchange is the Designated
Examining Authority.\32\ The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph
(e) to state that any other Exchange participant also is required to
maintain the information specified in Rule 3 to the extent such
information is required to be maintained pursuant to the Exchange Act
and the rules thereunder or, as previously set forth in the pre-
existing version of paragraph (e), pursuant to the rules of the other
self-regulatory organizations of which they are members.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Exchange also proposes to add the phrase ``by Certain
Participants'' to the title of the rule so that it reads ``Records
of Orders and Executions by Certain Participants.'' See proposed
Article 11, Rule 3. The Exchange states that this change is meant to
better distinguish Article 11, Rule 3 from Article 11, Rule 2, which
requires all Exchange participants to comply with the requirements
of SEC Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481.
    \32\ See proposed Article 11, Rule 3(a).
    \33\ See proposed Article 11, Rule 3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to clarify that proprietary
orders fall under the purview of Article 11, Rule 3.\34\ To accomplish
this, the Exchange proposes to delete from paragraph .01 under the
Interpretations and Policies of Article 11, Rule 3 the sentence stating
that a decision by a participant to buy or sell securities for his or
her own account on the Exchange shall not constitute an order for which
a record must be made under the rule.\35\ The Exchange notes that that
sentence excluded from the scope of Article 11, Rule 3(a) the decision
to purchase or sell a security on a proprietary basis, and not the
proprietary order itself.\36\ The Exchange states, however, that it
believes the sentence could be misconstrued to exclude all proprietary
orders from the scope of Article 11, Rule 3.\37\ The Exchange also
believes that current Article 11, Rule 3(a)(1)-(3) adequately describes
the types of orders subject to current Article 11, Rule 3.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481.
    \35\ See proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Article 11,
Rule 3.
    \36\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph .03 under the
Interpretations and Policies of Article 11, Rule 3. Currently,
paragraph .03 states that the rule shall not apply to orders sent or
received through the matching system or through any other electronic
system that the Exchange expressly recognizes as providing the required
information in a format acceptable to the Exchange. The Exchange states
that it believes the current provision could be misconstrued to exclude
such orders from the scope of Article 11, Rule 3, which is not the
Exchange's intent.\39\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph .03 to state that a participant that sends or receives
orders, cancellations and executions through the matching system or
through any other electronic system that the Exchange expressly
recognizes as providing the required information in a format acceptable
to the Exchange is not required to maintain separate records of such
orders, cancellations and executions.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id. The Exchange also notes that the amendments would
have no impact on a Participant's recordkeeping obligations under
Article 11, Rule 2, which requires, among other things, that
Participants comply with the recordkeeping requirements of SEC Rule
17a-3. See id. at 37481-82, n.33.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Additional Proposed Rule Clarifications--Cross Orders

    The Exchange has also proposed to adopt amendments to clarify its
rules regarding the operation of cross orders and Cross With Size
handling and to eliminate redundant language in those

rules.\41\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition
of ``cross order'' to state that a cross order may only execute within
the Exchange's matching system if it is priced better than the working
price, as defined under Article 1, Rule 1(pp), of all resting orders on
the CHX Book.\42\ The Exchange notes that the amended definition is
intended to clarify that while the pricing requirement is a
prerequisite for executing a cross order within the matching system, a
cross order that does not meet the pricing requirement is still by
definition a cross order for purposes of the Exchange's rules.\43\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(g)(1), which defines
and sets forth special order handling requirements for Cross With Size
orders, to state that a cross order that meets the Cross With Size
definition will execute if there are no resting orders on the CHX Book
with a working price better than the cross order.\44\ In addition, the
Exchange has proposed to amend Article 20, Rule 8(e)(1), which
specifies how certain order types will be executed in the matching
system, to remove references to Cross With Size and to state that cross
orders are to be handled pursuant to Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) and Rule
2(g)(1).\45\ The Exchange states it is proposing to remove references
to Cross With Size from Article 20, Rule 8(e)(1) because Cross With
Size is a special handling for cross orders, and not itself an order
type or order modifier.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37480-81.
    \42\ See proposed Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2).
    \43\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37480-81.
    \44\ See proposed Article 1, Rule 2(g)(1). The Exchange also
proposes to remove from this rule, as well Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2),
language that states that cross and Cross With Size orders will
execute so long as it would not constitute a trade-through under
Regulation NMS (including all applicable exceptions and exemptions).
See id.; see also proposed Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2). The Exchange
notes that it is proposing to remove this language because it is
redundant. See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481.
    \45\ See proposed Article 20, Rule 8(e)(1).
    \46\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Operative Date

    The Exchange has proposed to provide notice to its participants of
the operative date of the proposed change in the event that the
proposed rule change is approved by the Commission.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \48\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange.\49\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\50\ which
requires that an exchange be so organized and have the capacity to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce
compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and
the rules of the exchange; and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\51\ which
requires, among other things, 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 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,
and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \49\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to permit only
registered IBs to submit QCT crosses to the Exchange is consistent with
the Act. The Exchange has noted that, currently, while other types of
Exchange participants are permitted to submit QCT crosses, only IBs do
so in practice.\52\ As such, the Commission believes that this aspect
of the proposal is designed to codify existing practice with respect to
QCT crosses and not designed to alter the status quo with respect to
the type of Exchange participant that submits them to the Exchange. In
addition, the Exchange has represented that any Exchange participant
that has satisfied the applicable requirements may register as an
IB.\53\ Further, the Exchange has noted that IBs have experience in
ensuring that QCT crosses are submitted to the Exchange matching system
in a manner consistent with Exchange rules and the QCT Exemption, the
Exchange's surveillance and examination program is optimized with
respect to the submission of QCT crosses by IBs in particular, and the
Exchange believes that the most effective way for it to surveil QCT
cross activity for compliance with Exchange rules and the QCT Exemption
is to limit the submission of QCTs to IBs.\54\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to amend Article 1,
Rule 2(b)(2)(E) to reflect current practice on the Exchange and permit
only IBs to submit QCT crosses is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act in that it is reasonably designed to help prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, and to protect investors and the
public interest, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination.
The Commission also notes in this regard that it received no comments
on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37481, 37483.
    \53\ See id. at 37483.
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed
rule amendments to require IBs to maintain records of, and record with
the Exchange, appropriate information regarding QCT cross transactions,
and in particular the away component orders and trades of such
transactions, are consistent with the Act. As the Exchange noted,
currently, its recordkeeping rules do not require the recording of
information regarding the away component orders and trades related to
QCT crosses submitted to the Exchange, and IBs instead are encouraged,
but not required, to enter such information into the BBOS.\55\ In
addition, the BBOS currently is not described in the Exchange's rules.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to require
reporting of relevant information regarding away component orders and
trades related to QCT crosses and subject that information to the
Exchange's recordkeeping requirements in Article 11, Rule 3 and Article
17, Rule 3, as well as the Exchange's proposal to codify the BBOS in
Article 17, Rule 7, will strengthen the Exchange's recordkeeping
requirements with respect to QCT crosses and should enhance the
Exchange's ability to monitor for compliance with relevant Exchange
rules and the QCT Exemption.\56\ Moreover, the Commission does not
believe that these additional recordkeeping obligations would be unduly
burdensome to IBs, and in this regard again notes that it received no
comments on the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the
Exchange's proposed amendments to Article 11, Rule 3 and Article 17,
Rules 3 and 7 to require additional recordkeeping regarding QCT crosses
is designed to support CHX's regulatory oversight of QCT crosses and
thereby should help protect investors and the public interest,
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See id. at 37482.
    \56\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 37483.

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

    Lastly, the Commission believes that the Exchange's additional
proposed amendments to clarify its rules regarding IB recordkeeping
accounts (Article 17, Rule 3(c)), the recordkeeping requirements for
certain Exchange participants (Article 11, Rule 3), and the operation
of the cross order type and Cross With Size handling (Article 1, Rule
2(a)(2), Article 1, Rule 2(g)(1) and Article 20, Rule 8(e)) add
transparency and remove any potential ambiguity in those rules and
reduce the potential for confusion as to their meaning and intended
application, which should help protect investors consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In addition, the Commission believes that
these proposed changes are reasonably designed to clarify the scope and
meaning of those rules, which should help the Exchange assure
compliance by Exchange participants with the Exchange's rules,
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\57\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2017-12), be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20754 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P