[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26707-26710]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09130]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0672; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0706; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0708;
FRL-9649-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota; Revised
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve three State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision requests, submitted by Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota.
All three states submitted the SIP revision requests in 2016 in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call
published on June 12, 2015, for specific provisions in each state's SIP
related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) events. Each of these SIP submissions was submitted independently
and EPA is analyzing them individually. However, EPA is packaging the
proposed approvals together in a single action both for administrative
efficiency and because EPA's action approving the revisions
consistently applies EPA's national policy regarding SSM provisions in
SIPs. EPA is proposing approval of these SIP submissions and proposing
to determine that each submission corrects the state's respective SIP
deficiencies as identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0672 (Indiana); EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0706 (Michigan); or EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0708 (Minnesota) at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email
to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for

submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]. The
EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460), EPA published a Federal
Register notice of proposed rulemaking outlining the agency's policy at
the time with respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. This
policy stated that director's discretion and automatic exemption
provisions for periods of SSM were impermissible under the Clean Air
Act (CAA), but that appropriately drawn affirmative defense provisions
may be permissible under certain circumstances. EPA analyzed specific
SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not
comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each
SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA
proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a
supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking that revised what the
Agency had previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit that determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to
create affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil
suits.\2\ EPA outlined in its updated policy that affirmative defense
SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed
in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and to propose SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).
    \2\ NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir.2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements.
    The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36
states, including Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota, were substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those
states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA
established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to
submit such SIP revisions. The detailed rationale for issuing the SIP
calls to Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota can be found in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action and preceding proposed actions. States were required to
submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls
by November 22, 2016. Indiana submitted a SIP revision request in
response to the SIP call on November 14, 2016, and supplemented it on
January 31, 2017. Michigan submitted a SIP revision request in response
to the SIP call on November 15, 2016, and supplemented it on February
7, 2017. Minnesota submitted a SIP revision request in response to the
SIP call on November 22, 2016, and supplemented it on February 10,
2017. This proposal addresses all three of these SIP submittals in a
consolidated action.
    In October 2020, EPA issued a Memorandum (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\3\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota in 2015. The
2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to
review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to
determine whether EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw particular
SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\4\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including minority, low-income and
indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\5\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular
SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's

intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the 2015
SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP submissions, including
the three state SIP submittals provided in response to the 2015 SSM SIP
Action which are addressed in this consolidated proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \5\ 80 FR 33985, June 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of the States' Submissions

Indiana

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that a provision in the
Indiana SIP was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.
Indiana's SIP rules are codified in the Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC). Indiana's rule 326 IAC 1-6-4(a) provided a director's discretion
exemption from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations during
malfunctions. EPA determined that the Indiana rule was inconsistent
with the requirements of the CAA for the reasons explained in Section
IX.F.2 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although the 2015 SSM SIP Action describes Indiana's rule 1-
6-4(a) ``generally applicable,'' the actual rule applies only to
non-major sources. It does not apply to larger facilities that have
major source operating permits pursuant to title V of the CAA and 40
CFR part 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana submitted its SIP revision request pursuant to the 2015 SSM
SIP Action on November 14, 2016 and supplemented it on January 31,
2017. Indiana removed the provisions in 326 IAC 1-6-4(a) that provided
for discretionary exemptions. The state removed language that read in
part, ``Emissions temporarily exceeding the standards which are due to
malfunctions of facilities or emission control equipment shall not be
considered a violation of the rules provided that the source
demonstrates. . .'' [meeting a list of criteria]. Indiana also removed
language from 326 IAC 1-6-4(a)(1)-(4) which gave criteria that would
have allowed for the exemptions. The rule at 326 IAC 1-6-4 now reads:
``Source owners or operators shall operate and maintain all emission
control equipment and combustion process equipment or processes in
compliance with all applicable rules.'' Indiana's submittal also
included administrative revisions to other sections of rule 326 IAC 1-
6, (1-6-1, 1-6-2, 1-6-5, and 1-6-6), such as replacing the word
``shall'' with ``must'' or changing ``facility'' to ``emission unit''
or ``source''. In addition, Indiana revised and submitted a separate
general rule, 326 IAC 2-9-1, removing a reference to rule 326 IAC 1-6
applying during malfunctions. EPA is proposing to find that the revised
language in 326 IAC 1-6 and 326 IAC 2-9-1 addresses the deficiency
outlined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action for Indiana.

Michigan

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that a provision in the
Michigan SIP, Michigan Administrative Code R 336.1916, (R 336.1916),
provided an affirmative defense to monetary penalties for violations of
otherwise applicable SIP limitations during startup and shutdown
periods and therefore was substantially inadequate to meet CAA SIP
requirements. EPA's rationale for this determination is explained in
Section IX.F.3 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    Michigan submitted its SIP revision request on November 15, 2016,
and supplemented it on February 7, 2017.\7\ Michigan revised and
curtailed the applicability of R 336.1916, and requested that EPA
remove it entirely from the Michigan SIP. Rule R 336.1916, as revised,
specifically cites a list of Michigan's air toxics rules and its
nuisance rule as the only rules to which the affirmative defense in R
336.1916 applies. The air toxics and nuisance rules are not part of
Michigan's criteria pollutant SIP. The revised rule R 336.1916 will
remain on Michigan's books, but as a state-only rule. EPA is proposing
to remove R 336.1916 from Michigan's federally enforceable criteria
pollutant SIP, per Michigan's request, because the rule no longer
applies to criteria pollutant emission limits. EPA is also proposing to
find that the removal of R 336.1916 would remove the SSM deficiency
from Michigan's SIP, and would fully address the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Michigan's 2017 submittal also requested SIP approval of
eight other revised SIP rules, unrelated to the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
EPA has addressed these rules in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minnesota

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that a provision in the
Minnesota SIP was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.
The Minnesota rule, Minnesota Rule 7011.1415 (Minn. R. 7011.1415),
provided automatic exemptions for excess emissions resulting from
flared gas at petroleum refineries when the flaring is necessitated by
SSM events. EPA determined that the Minnesota rule was inconsistent
with the requirements of the CAA for the reasons more fully explained
in Section IX.F.4 of the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    Minnesota submitted its SIP revision request on November 22, 2016,
and supplemented it on February 10, 2017. Minnesota repealed Minn R.
7011.1415, effective December 27, 2016, and requested that EPA remove
Minn. R. 7011.1415 from the SIP. EPA is proposing to approve
Minnesota's SIP revision request because removing the deficient rule
from the Minnesota SIP responds fully to the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
    In summary, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA found that the SIPs for
Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota contained provisions that were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and accordingly
issued a SIP call to the state to revise those SIP provisions. In
response, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota have submitted SIP revision
requests. In this action, EPA proposes to find that the SIP revisions
submitted by each of the three states remedy the issues identified in
EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, and therefore proposes to approve the SIP
submittals from all three states and, if the proposed action is
finalized, determine that the SIP call obligation issued in 2015 has
been fulfilled. In the case of Indiana, EPA is proposing to approve the
revised language in 326 IAC 1-6 and 326 IAC 2-9-1. In the cases of
Michigan and Minnesota, EPA is proposing to remove Michigan's R
336.1916 and Minn. R. 7011.1415 from the Michigan and Minnesota SIPs,
respectively. EPA is proposing to find that all three of these state
SIP revision requests meet the requirements of the CAA and address the
deficiencies in each SIP as outlined in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.

III. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve three SIP revision requests submitted
in 2016 and supplemented in 2017 by Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota in
order to address EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is proposing to
determine that the three states' rulemaking actions and revised rules
are consistent with the SSM requirements for SIP provisions under the
CAA; that their respective SIP submissions correct the SSM deficiencies
identified for the state within EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action; and fulfill
the obligation to respond to it.
    EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only taking
comment on whether each state's SIP revision addresses the finding of
substantial inadequacy for the respective SIP provisions identified in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by

reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference Indiana rules 326 IAC 1-6-1, 326
IAC 1-6-2, 326 IAC 1-6-4, 326 IAC 1-6-5, 326 IAC 1-6-6; and 326 IAC 2-
9-1, effective January 29, 2017, as discussed in Section II of this
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
    Also in this document, as described in section II of this preamble,
EPA is proposing to remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Michigan and
Minnesota Regulations and Statutes from the Michigan and Minnesota
SIPs, which are incorporated by reference in accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 21, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2022-09130 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80567]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1105

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1555]

Refuse To Accept Procedures for Premarket Tobacco Product
Submissions; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published in the
Federal Register of August 8, 2016, a direct final rule regarding
procedures for refusing to accept premarket tobacco product
submissions. The comment period closed October 24, 2016. FDA is
withdrawing the direct final rule because the Agency received
significant adverse comment. FDA will consider the comments we received
on the direct final rule to be comments on the companion proposed rule
published at 81 FR 52371 (August 8, 2016).

DATES: The direct final rule published at 81 FR 52329 (August 8, 2016),
is withdrawn effective November 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Marthaler or Paul Hart, Office
of Regulations, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, the direct final rule published on August 8, 2016, (81 FR
52329) is withdrawn.

    Dated: November 9, 2016.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2016-27456 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3186-3188]
[DOCID:fr24ja07-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55121; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto, Relating to Limit Orders Submitted by Streaming Quote Traders

January 18, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 5, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Phlx. On December 8, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. On January 11, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(B) and Commentary
.04 thereto to permit Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \3\ and Remote
Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \4\ to enter Immediate or Cancel
(``IOC'') \5\ orders for their own account(s) through an electronic
interface with AUTOM; \6\ to permit non-SQT ROTs \7\ and specialists to
place proprietary limit orders with a size of 10 contracts or greater
onto the limit order book; to expand the type of order that non-SQT
ROTs and specialists may enter to include IOC; and to permit non-SQT
ROTs and specialists to submit proprietary limit orders with a size of
less than 10 contracts as IOC only. The Exchange further proposes to
amend Commentary .02 and .03 of Phlx Rule 1082 to reduce the one-second
``counting period'' to \1/4\ of one second during which SQTs, RSQTs
and/or specialists may eliminate the locked or crossed markets caused
by their electronic quotations.\8\ The text of the proposed rule change
is available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.phlx.com.

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

    \3\ An SQT is a Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options in which
such SQT is assigned. An SQT may only submit such quotations while
such SQT is physically present on the floor of the Exchange. See
Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \4\ An RSQT is a ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Phlx Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \5\ An immediate-or-cancel order is an order that is to be
executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is submitted. Any
portion not so executed is to be treated as cancelled.
    \6\ AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order delivery, routing,
execution and reporting system, which provides for the automatic
entry and routing of equity option and index option orders to the
Exchange trading floor. Orders delivered through AUTOM may be
executed manually, or certain orders are eligible for AUTOM's
automatic execution features, AUTO-X, Book Sweep and Book Match.
Equity option and index option specialists are required by the
Exchange to participate in AUTOM and its features and enhancements.
Option orders entered by Exchange members into AUTOM are routed to
the appropriate specialist unit on the Exchange trading floor. AUTOM
is now commonly referred to as Phlx XL. See Phlx Rule 1080.
    \7\ A ROT is an on-floor options participant of the Exchange who
has received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for
his own account in eligible options in which such ROT is assigned.
See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(i).
    \8\ Any unresolved locked or crossed markets remaining after the
counting period are automatically executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to offer an additional
mechanism for participants on the Exchange's electronic trading
platform for options, Phlx XL,\9\ to trade against orders and
electronic quotations. Currently, only non-SQT ROTs and specialists may
enter limit orders, and such limit orders may only be submitted with a
minimum size of 10 contracts as Good-Till-Cancelled, day limit and
simple cancel orders. Under the proposal, the Exchange would expand
limit order entry to SQTs and RSQTs, who would be permitted to enter
IOC orders with no size limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 46612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would include limitations on the eligible order type
and permissible order size, depending on the status of the participant
submitting the order. Specifically, non-SQT ROTs and specialists would
be permitted to submit limit orders with a size of 10 contracts or
greater as Good-Till-Cancelled, day limit, IOC or simple cancel order
types. Orders for less than 10 contracts submitted by non-SQT ROTs and
specialists would be required to be submitted as IOC only.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, the IOC order type is not eligible for
submission by non-SQT ROTs and specialists, and all orders must be
for a minimum size of 10 contracts. The proposal would permit orders
with a size of less than 10 contracts, provided that such orders
must be submitted as IOC only. Orders submitted by non-SQT ROTs and
specialists with a size of 10 contracts or greater would be eligible
to be placed on the limit order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SQTs and RSQTs would be permitted to submit limit orders of any
size,\11\ provided that all limit orders submitted must be IOC. Thus,
limit orders submitted by SQTs and RSQTs would not be eligible to rest
on the limit order book, and would be cancelled if not executed
immediately. If only a part of such an order is executed immediately,
the remaining unexecuted contracts in such an order would be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Currently, the Exchange permits SQTs to submit electronic
quotations only. The proposal would permit SQTs to submit IOC limit
orders in addition to electronic quotations. The quoting obligations
applicable to SQTs contained in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D) would
be unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, specialists and non-SQT ROTs that submit limit
orders with a size of less than 10 contracts must submit such orders as
IOC only. According to the Exchange, this is to ensure that limit
orders with a size of less than 10 contracts are not placed on the
limit order book. The Exchange believes that this provision should
encourage liquidity on the Exchange and limit orders on the limit order
book that represent the Exchange's best bid or offer and would thus
result in a disseminated size of at least 10 contracts on the Exchange.
    The purpose of the proposed change to Commentary .02 and .03 of
Phlx Rule 1082 is to improve the speed by which the Exchange's systems
can automatically execute locked or crossed quotations against one
another and eliminate the locked or crossed market situation,\12\ which
should, in turn, facilitate compliance with firm quote obligations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Any unresolved locked or crossed markets remaining after
the counting period are automatically executed.
    \13\ See Phlx Rule 1082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest by increasing the efficiency of options trading on the
Exchange by allowing on-floor participants to electronically enter an
additional type of order, which should increase the number of automatic
executions. The Exchange believes that this new functionality should
increase order interaction between market participants on the Exchange
and the electronic limit order book. The Exchange also believes that
reducing the counting period during which market participants may
resolve locked and crossed markets should improve market efficiency by
eliminating locked and crossed markets in a more timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which Phlx consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-31. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Phlx-2006-31 and should be submitted on or before February 14, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-977 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8515-8516]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1436-011; ER10-2329-008; ER10-2740-010; ER10-
2742-009; ER10-3099-017; ER10-3143-018; ER10-3169-011; ER10-3300-014;
ER12-1260-010; ER12-1436-011; ER13-1488-008; ER13-1793-008; ER14-152-
006; ER14-153-006; ER14-154-006; ER16-517-001.
    Applicants: Eagle Point Power Generation LLC, Elgin Energy Center,
LLC, Gibson City Energy Center, LLC, Grand Tower Energy Center, LLC,
Hazle Spindle, LLC, La Paloma Generating Company, LLC, Michigan Power
Limited Partnership, Quantum Pasco Power, LP, RC Cape May Holdings,
LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC, Sabine Cogen, LP, Shelby County Energy
Center, LLC, Tilton Energy LLC, Vineland Energy, LLC, Stephentown
Spindle, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 30, 2016 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of the Rockland Sellers.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5218..
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1058-001.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Compliance to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2656-002.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: APS Motion to Partically Withdraw
Tariff Filing to be effective 11/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-808-000.
    Applicants: Clearview Electric, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 1/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-809-000.
    Applicants: Verso Escanaba LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Escanaba Paper
Company Tariff to be effective 1/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-810-000.
    Applicants: Verso Luke LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Luke Paper
Company Tariff to be effective 1/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-811-000.
    Applicants: NewPage Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of NewPage Energy
Services Tariff to be effective 1/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-812-000.
    Applicants: Rumford Paper Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Rumford Paper
Company Tariff to be effective 1/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-813-000.
    Applicants: Verso Energy Services LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Verso Maine
Energy LLC Tariff to be effective 1/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-814-000.
    Applicants: Verso Energy Services LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Baseline Filing for Verso Energy
Services LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 1/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-815-000.
    Applicants: Verso Escanaba LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Baseline Filing for Verso Escanaba
LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 1/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-816-000.
    Applicants: Verso Luke LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Baseline Filing for Verso Luke LLC
MBR Tariff to be effective 1/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-817-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4604; Queue No. U5-028 and U4-029 to be effective 12/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170118-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES17-9-000.
    Applicants: GridLiance West Transco LLC.
    Description: Amendment to December 16, 2016 Application Under
Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue
Securities of GridLiance West Transco LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/17.
    Accession Number: 20170113-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/23/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01780 Filed 1-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 8937]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04557]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 14, 2019.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Jackson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Litigation matters;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: March 7, 2019.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04557 Filed 3-8-19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P