[Federal Register: April 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 16382-16383]
[DOCID:fr10ap09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-61-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP 671701; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kosciusko Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

April 3, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Kosciusko Project (Kosciusko)
involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern
Transmission LP (Texas Eastern) in Attala County, Mississippi. This EA
will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on May 3, 2009.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners within one-half
mile of the compressor station, Federal, State, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to construct and modify its existing
Kosciusko Compressor Station as well as abandon certain existing
facilities. These facilities to be abandoned include one outdated
compressor unit, turbine, as well as approximately 150 feet of 24-inch
diameter pipeline and other related piping and valving associated with
the compressor unit. Texas Eastern states that the project would
benefit Texas Eastern's customers by providing reliable access to a
significant new source of supply throughout the Texas Eastern network.
    Texas Eastern is proposing to install:
     One Solar Model C452 centrifugal compressor;
     One Converteam 12,500 horsepower 13.2 kilovolt (kV) motor;
     One 300 kilowatt standby generator with a Waukesha VGF
18GL;
     Approximately 1,800 linear feet of new 30-inch diameter
pipeline header system all within the Kosciusko Compressor Station
yard;
     One 115 kV to 15 kV electrical substation with switchgear
building and access road;
     Associated valves, piping, underground electric utility
line, and appurtenant facilities; and
     Control/operating upgrades to the existing reciprocating
integral compressors.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If approved, Texas Eastern proposes to commence construction of the
proposed facilities in February 2010.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction and renovation of the Kosciusko Compressor Station
would require approximately 10.75 acres within the Kosciusko Compressor
Station property.
    Texas Eastern is proposing to utilize existing access roads and
existing right-of-way for the proposed project. No land disturbance
would be required for additional access roads or construction
activities.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils.
     Land use.
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.

     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Air quality and noise.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this NOI, we are asking Federal, State, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Texas Eastern. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Potential impacts may occur to the Federally-listed
Louisiana black bear and the bald eagle.
     Potential impacts on air quality and potential noise
emissions may occur.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Kosciusko Project. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
May 3, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP09-61-000 with your submission.
The docket number can be found on the front of this notice. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8167 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60911-60916]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25883]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84642; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Adopt Complex Reserve
Order Functionality

November 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 8, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
adopt Complex Reserve Order functionality.

(additions are italic; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Rules of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
* * * * *
Rule 21.20. Complex Orders
    (a) No change.
    (b) Availability of Types of Complex Orders. The Exchange will
determine and communicate to Members via specifications and/or a
Regulatory Circular listing when the complex order types, among the
complex order types set forth in this Rule, are available for use on
the Exchange. The complex order types that may be submitted are limit
orders and market orders, and orders with a Time in Force of GTD, IOC,
DAY, GTC, or OPG as such terms are defined in Rule 21.1(f).The System
also accepts the following instructions for complex orders[ will also
be accepted by the Exchange]:
    (1)-(3) No change.
    (4) (Reserved)
    (5) (Reserved)
    (6) Complex Reserve Order. A ``Complex Reserve Order'' is a complex
limit order with both a portion of the quantity displayed (``Display
Quantity'') and a reserve portion of the quantity (``Reserve
Quantity'') not displayed. Both the Display Quantity and Reserve
Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order are available for potential
execution pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) below. When entering a
Complex Reserve Order, a User must instruct the Exchange as to the
quantity of the Complex Reserve Order to be initially displayed by the
System (``Max Floor''). If the Display Quantity of a Complex Reserve
Order is fully executed, the System will, in accordance with the User's
instruction, replenish the Display Quantity from the Reserve Quantity
using one of the below replenishment instructions. If the remainder of
a Complex Reserve Order is less than the replenishment amount, the
System will display the entire remainder of the Complex Reserve Order.
The System creates a new timestamp for both the Display Quantity and
Reserve Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order each time it is
replenished from reserve.
    (A) Random Replenishment. An instruction that a User may attach to
a Complex Reserve Order where the System randomly replenishes the
Display Quantity for the Complex Reserve Order with a number of
contracts not outside a replenishment range, which equals the Max Floor
plus and minus a replenishment value established by the User when
entering a Complex Reserve Order with a Random Replenishment
instruction.
    (B) Fixed Replenishment. For any Complex Reserve Order for which a
User does not select Random Replenishment, the System will replenish
the Display Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order with the number of
contracts equal to the Max Floor (or the entire remainder of the
Complex Reserve Order if it is less than the replenishment amount).
    (c) Trading of Complex Orders. The Exchange will determine and
communicate to Members via specifications and/or Regulatory Circular
which complex order origin codes (i.e., non-broker-dealer customers,
broker-dealers that are not Market Makers on an options exchange, and/
or Market Makers on an options exchange) are eligible for entry onto
the COB. Complex orders will be subject to all other Exchange Rules
that pertain to orders submitted to the Exchange generally, unless
otherwise provided in this Rule.
    (1) No change.
    (2) Execution of Complex Orders.
    (A)-(E) No change.
    (F) Legging. Complex orders up to a maximum number of legs
(determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis as either two,
three, or four legs

and communicated to Members via specifications and/or Regulatory
Circular) may be automatically executed against bids and offers on the
Simple Book (both displayed and nondisplayed orders) for the individual
legs of the complex order (``Legging''), provided the complex order can
be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by such bids and offers.
Complex orders with two option legs where both legs are buying or both
legs are selling and both legs are calls or both legs are puts may only
trade against other complex orders on the COB and will not be permitted
to leg into the Simple Book. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all two leg
COA-eligible Customer complex orders will be allowed to leg into the
Simple Book without restriction. Complex orders with three or four
option legs where all legs are buying or all legs are selling may only
trade against other complex orders on the COB and will not leg into the
Simple Book, regardless of whether the option leg is a call or a put.
The entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order (both the Display
Quantity and Reserve Quantity) Legs into the Simple Book at the same
time, and any quantity that does not execute pursuant to paragraph (c)
or (d) after Legging will rest in the COB in accordance with the
Complex Reserve Order instruction.
    (G) No change.
    (3) Complex Order Priority.
    (A) No change.
    (B) Complex orders will be automatically executed against bids and
offers on the COB in price priority. Bids and offers at the same price
on the COB will be executed in time priority. Displayed complex orders
resting on the COB have priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex
Reserve Orders resting on the COB. If there are Priority Customer
Orders in the Simple Book at the same price as orders resting on the
COB against which an incoming complex order will execute, the order
will first Leg into the Simple Book to execute against the Priority
Customer Orders (both displayed and nondisplayed orders) before
executing against complex orders in the COB. Complex orders that leg
into the Simple Book (as described in subparagraph (c)(2)(F) above)
will be executed in accordance with Rule 21.8.
    (4)-(6) No change.
    (d) COA Process. All option classes will be eligible to participate
in a COA. Upon evaluation as set forth in subparagraph (c)(5) above,
the Exchange may determine to automatically submit a COA-eligible order
into a COA.
    (1) No change.
    (2) Commencement of COA. Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order, the
Exchange will begin the COA process by sending a COA auction message.
The COA auction message will be sent to all subscribers to the
Exchange's data feeds that deliver COA auction messages. The COA
auction message will identify the COA auction ID, instrument ID (i.e.,
complex strategy), origin code, quantity, and side of the market of the
COA-eligible order. If the COA-eligible order is a Complex Reserve
Order, the COA auction message only identifies the Display Quantity;
however, the entire quantity (both the Display Quantity and Reserve
Quantity) may execute following the COA pursuant to subparagraph (7)
below. The Exchange may also determine to include the price in COA
auction messages and if it does so it will announce such determination
in published specifications and/or a Regulatory Circular to Members.
The price included in the COA auction message will be the limit order
price, unless the COA is initiated by a complex market order, in which
case such price will be the SBBO, subject to any applicable price
protections.
    (3) No change.
    (4) COA Response. Members may submit a response to the COA auction
message (a ``COA Response'') during the Response Time Interval. COA
Responses can be submitted by a Member with any origin code, including
Priority Customer. COA Responses may be submitted in $0.01 increments
and must specify the price, size, side of the market (i.e., a response
to a buy COA as a sell or a response to a sell COA as a buy) and COA
auction ID for the COA to which the response is targeted. COA Responses
may be larger than the COA-eligible order. Multiple COA Responses from
the same Member may be submitted during the Response Time Interval. COA
Responses represent non-firm interest that can be modified or withdrawn
at any time prior to the end of the Response Time Interval, though any
modification to a COA Response other than a decrease of size will
result in a new timestamp and a loss of priority. COA Responses will
not be displayed by the Exchange. At the end of the Response Time
Interval, COA Responses are firm (i.e., guaranteed at their price and
size). Any COA Responses not executed in full will expire at the end of
the COA. Any COA Responses not executable based on the price of the COA
will be cancelled immediately.
    (5)-(6) No change.
    (7) Allocation at the Conclusion of a COA. Orders executed in a COA
will be allocated first in price priority based on their original limit
price as follows:
    (A) Priority Customer Orders (both displayed and nondisplayed
Priority Customer Orders) resting on the Simple Book;
    (B) COA Responses and unrelated orders on the COB (displayed
complex orders have priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex
Reserve Orders) in time priority;
    (C) No change.
    (8)-(9) No change.
    Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.06 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is the
parent company of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'') and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc., acquired the Exchange, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX or BZX Options''), and Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with C2, Cboe Options, EDGX,
EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges are working to align certain system functionality, retaining
only intended differences between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the
context of the technology migration of Cboe Options to the same trading
platform as the Exchange. Thus, the proposed rule change is intended to

add certain functionality to the Exchange's System that is currently
offered by Cboe Options \3\ in order to ultimately provide a consistent
technology offering for market participants who interact with the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers
certain features that differ from those offered by its affiliates and
will continue to do so, the Exchange believes that offering similar
functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion
for Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cboe Options currently offers reserve functionality for
complex orders. See Cboe Options Regulatory Circular RG11-016
(January 27, 2011); see also Cboe Options Rule 6.53 (which permits
Cboe Options to determine which orders types are available for which
Exchange systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, one of the Order Types in the Rules for simple orders is
a Reserve Order.\4\ When implemented, simple Reserve Orders will permit
Users to enter orders with both displayed and nondisplayed amounts.
Reserve Orders will provide Users with additional flexibility to manage
and display their orders and additional control over their executions
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 21.1(d)(1). This rule is currently effective but
not yet operative. See SR-CboeEDGX-2018-051 (November 5, 2018). The
Exchange intends to implement simple Reserve Order functionality on
November 29, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Complex Reserve Order
functionality.\5\ Complex Reserve Orders would generally function in
the same manner as simple Reserve Orders, as currently described in the
definition of Reserve Orders in Rule 21.1(d)(1).\6\ Specifically, a
``Complex Reserve Order'' is a complex limit order with both a portion
of the quantity displayed (``Display Quantity'') and a reserve portion
of the quantity (``Reserve Quantity'') not displayed. Both the Display
Quantity and Reserve Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order are available
for execution pursuant to Rule 21.20(c) and (d).\7\ When entering a
Complex Reserve Order, a User must instruct the Exchange as to the
quantity of the Complex Reserve Order to be initially displayed by the
System (``Max Floor''). If the Display Quantity of a Complex Reserve
Order is fully executed, the System will, in accordance with the User's
instruction, replenish the Display Quantity from the Reserve Quantity
using one of the below replenishment instructions. If the remainder of
a Complex Reserve Order is less than the replenishment amount, the
System will display the entire remainder of the Complex Reserve Order.
The System creates a new timestamp for both the Display Quantity and
Reserve Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order each time it is
replenished from reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed Rule 21.20(b)(6). The Exchange recently
proposed to amend its Rules to adopt Post Only complex order
functionality. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-84393
(October 10, 2018), 83 FR 52264 (October 16, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-
2018-043). The proposed rule text is based on the currently
effective rule text (the proposed reserved subparagraphs (b)(4) and
5) accommodate proposed rule text the Exchange intends to include in
an amendment to that rule filing). If SR-CboeEDGX-2018-043 is
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') prior to the date the Commission acts on this rule
filing, the Exchange will amend this rule filing to update the
proposed rule text to reflect the rule text as amended by that
filing.
    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ Pursuant to Rule 21.20(c) and (d), complex orders (including
the Display and Reserve Quantities of Complex Reserve Orders) may
execute during the COB opening process, against incoming complex
orders, simple orders in the Simple Book (via Legging), or following
a COA (if the complex order is COA-eligible pursuant to Rule
21.20(b)(2)). Complex Reserve Orders will be COA-eligible, subject
to a User's instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A User may determine that a Complex Reserve Order it submits should
be subject to ``Random Replenishment'' or ``Fixed Replenishment.'' If a
Complex Reserve Order has a Random Replenishment instruction, the
System randomly replenishes the Display Quantity for the Complex
Reserve Order with a number of contracts not outside a replenishment
range, which equals the Max Floor plus and minus a replenishment value
established by the User when entering a Complex Reserve Order with a
Random Replenishment instruction. For any Complex Reserve Order for
which a User does not select Random Replenishment, the System will
replenish the Display Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order with the
number of contracts equal to the Max Floor (or the entire remainder of
the Complex Reserve Order if it is less than the replenishment amount).
    Current Rule 21.20(d)(2) provides that upon receipt of a COA-
eligible order,\8\ the Exchange will begin the complex order auction
(``COA'') process by sending a COA auction message to all subscribers
to the Exchange's data feeds that deliver COA auction messages. A COA
auction message identifies the COA auction ID, instrument ID (i.e.
complex strategy), origin code, quantity, and side of the market of the
COA-eligible order. The proposed rule change provides that if the COA-
eligible order is a Complex Reserve Order, the COA auction message only
identifies the Display Quantity; however, the entire quantity (both the
Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity) may execute following the COA
pursuant to Rule 21.20(d)(7).\9\ The Exchange believes this is
consistent with the purpose of a Reserve Order. If a User submits a
Reserve Order (simple or complex), the User does so to only have a
certain specified size publicly displayed. If the entire quantity of a
Complex Reserve Order was auctioned in a COA, the entire size of the
Complex Reserve Order would be publicly displayed,\10\ rather than the
Display Quantity the User indicated it wanted publicly visible.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to include only the
Display Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 21.20(b)(2) for the definition of a COA-eligible
order.
    \9\ See proposed Rule 21.20(d)(2).
    \10\ See current Rule 21.20(d)(2) (COA auction messages
identify, among other things, the quantity of the COA-eligible
order).
    \11\ Making both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity
available for execution at the end of a COA is consistent with the
definition of the Reserve Order instruction for simple orders, which
provides that both portions are available for potential execution
against incoming orders. See Rule 21.1(d)(1). The proposed rule
change provides the entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order that
initiates a COA with an opportunity to execute following a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F) states the entire quantity of a
Complex Reserve Order (both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity)
will Leg into the Simple Book at the same time, and any quantity that
does not execute pursuant to Rule 21.20(c) or (d) after Legging will
rest in the COB in accordance with the proposed Complex Reserve Order
instruction. As stated in the definition of a Reserve Order and the
proposed definition of a Complex Reserve Order, both the Displayed
Quantity and Reserve Quantity are eligible for execution against
incoming orders. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to similarly
make both the Displayed Quantity and Reserve Quantity eligible for
execution against orders and quotes in the Simple Book as well. This
will maximize the size of resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book
that may execute when these orders Leg into the Simple Book, as well as
provide the entire quantity of a Complex Reserve Order with an
opportunity to execute against orders in the Simple Book. A Complex
Reserve Order may Leg into the Simple Book after a COA, following
submission to the System (if not COA-eligible), or following evaluation
when resting in the COB.\12\ If any portion of a Complex Reserve Order
does not execute in those circumstances, the remaining quantity will
enter the COB with a Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity with amounts
determined in

accordance with proposed Rule 21.20(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 21.20(c)(2)(G) (describing the initial evaluation
process), (c)(5) (describing the evaluation process after a complex
order is resting in the COB), and (d)(5) (describing the processing
of COA-eligible orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also amends Rule 21.20(d)(4) to clarify
that COA Responses may be larger than the COA-eligible order (in
response to which the COA Response is submitted). Neither the System
nor the Rules limit the size of COA Responses to the size of the COA-
eligible order, and the Exchange believes this proposed change will
provide Users with additional clarity. Because COA Responses are not
limited to the size of COA-eligible orders, if a Complex Reserve Order
initiates a COA, COA Responses with size larger than the Display
Quantity of the Complex Reserve Order will have the opportunity to
execute against the entire size of the Complex Reserve Order.
    Processing and execution of Complex Reserve Orders will generally
occur in the same manner as other complex orders in accordance with
current Rule 21.20(c) and (d). Proposed Rule 21.20(c)(3)(B) and
(d)(7)(B) states that displayed complex orders resting on the COB have
priority over nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders resting
on the COB. This is consistent with the current handling of simple
Reserve Orders.\13\ The proposed rule change also clarifies in
21.20(c)(2)(F), (c)(3)(B), and (d)(7)(A) that both displayed and
nondisplayed Priority Customer bids and offers on the Simple Book \14\
for the individual leg components of the complex order trade before
complex orders (both displayed and nondisplayed orders) resting on the
COB and COA Responses, if applicable, at the same price when a complex
order Legs into the Simple Book. This is consistent with current
functionality and current Rules. Specifically, Rule 21.20(c)(3)(B)
states that complex orders that leg into the Simple Book will be
executed in accordance with Rule 21.8, which provides that resting
orders and quotes are prioritized according to price and there [sic]
are allocated in a pro-rata fashion (subject to priority overlays, such
as Priority Customer Overlays and Entitlements), and that displayed
orders have priority over nondisplayed orders. Therefore, if a complex
order Legs in to the Simple Book, it would execute against displayed
and then nondisplayed resting interest in the Simple Book at the
applicable price before executing against other complex orders. The
proposed rule change adds clarity to the priority of resting orders
when a complex order Legs into the Simple Book, as well as describes
how complex reserve orders will be prioritized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 21.1(d)(1) and supra note 4.
    \14\ Priority Customer orders on the Simple Book have first
priority pursuant to the Customer Overlay. See Rule 21.8(d).
Because, pursuant to current Rule 21.20(c)(3)(A), a complex order
must improve the price of the BBO of a component of a complex
strategy by at least $0.01 if it consists of a Priority Customer
Order, if the execution price of a complex order is the same as the
SBBO that consists of Priority Customer Orders, the order will first
Leg into the Simple Book pursuant to Rule 21.20(c)(2)(F). The
proposed rule change to Rule 21.20(c)(3)(A) clarifies this order of
priority. Specifically, the proposed rule change states if there are
Priority Customer Orders in the Simple Book at the same price as
orders resting on the COB against which an incoming complex order
will execute, the order will first Leg into the Simple Book to
execute against the Priority Customer Orders (both displayed and
nondisplayed orders) before executing against complex orders in the
COB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a complex order Legs into the Simple Book, the execution
priority of contra-side interest will be as follows:

 Displayed Priority Customer simple orders
 Nondisplayed portions of Priority Customer simple orders
 Displayed complex orders and COA Responses, if applicable
 Nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve Orders
 Displayed non-Priority Customer simple orders
 Nondisplayed portions of non-Priority Customer simple orders

The Exchange believes this is reasonable, as it ensures protection of
the leg markets while ensuring system stability. This priority order
results in nondisplayed orders on the Simple Book ahead of displayed
complex orders on the COB. While the Exchange generally prioritizes
displayed orders over nondisplayed orders to encourage Users to submit
displayed liquidity, executing complex orders first against displayed
Priority Customer simple orders, second against displayed complex
orders and COA responses, third against displayed non-Priority Customer
simple orders, fourth against nondisplayed portions Priority Customer
simple orders, fifth against nondisplayed portions of Complex Reserve
Orders, and sixth against nondisplayed portions of non-Priority
Customer simple orders would significantly increase the complexity of
the proposed functionality. The Simple Book and COB are entirely
separate functioning books, and moving a complex order back and forth
between the two books increases systematic risk related to Legging.
Additionally, this would increase the execution time for complex orders
that are able to Leg, which may harm Users. The Exchange believes the
need to ensure system stability and efficient executions in connection
with offering the proposed functionality to Users outweighs any
potential benefits of prioritizing all displayed interest ahead of
nondisplayed interest in this context.
    The proposed rule change also makes a nonsubstantive change to the
introductory sentence to the list of complex order types in Rule
21.20(b) to eliminate the use of passive voice in that sentence.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open national market system, as
well as benefit investors by providing Users with additional
flexibility to manage and display their complex orders and additional
control over their executions on the Exchange. This may encourage
market participants to bring additional liquidity to the market, which
benefits all investors.
    The Exchange notes that Reserve Order functionality is not new or
unique and is already available in a similar capacity for simple
orders. While the Reserve Order functionality is not currently
available for complex orders, the Exchange has Reserve Order
functionality in its Rules for simple orders, which functions
substantially in the same manner as the proposed Complex Reserve Order
functionality.\18\

The purpose of a Complex Reserve Order is the same as the purpose of a
simple Reserve Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As noted above, Reserve Order functionality for simple
orders is described in Rules that are currently effective but not
yet operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to only include the Displayed Quantity of
a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message protects investors, as it is
consistent with the purpose of a Complex Reserve Order and the
intention of a User that submits a Complex Reserve Order, which is to
only have a certain specified size publicly displayed. This provides
Complex Reserve Orders with the potential for price improvement in a
manner consistent with the objective of a Reserve Order. Therefore, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to only include the Display
Quantity of a Complex Reserve Order in a COA message.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding how
Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book will benefit investors.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the definition of a Reserve
Order, which states that the entire quantity is eligible for potential
execution against incoming orders, and thus provides the entire
quantity of a Reserve Order with an opportunity to execute against
orders and quotes in the Simple Book. Additionally, this will maximize
the size of resting orders and quotes on the Simple Book that may
execute when Complex Reserve Orders Leg into the Simple Book.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may increase
execution opportunities for both Complex Reserve Orders and simple
orders and quotes resting on the Simple Book.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change related to the
priority of Complex Reserve Orders promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, as it is consistent with current priority in the
Simple Book that provides displayed orders have priority over
nondisplayed orders. The proposed rule change that displayed portions
of complex orders resting on the COB have priority over nondisplayed
portions of Complex Reserve Orders resting on the COB is reasonable,
because it is consistent with the current handling of simple Reserve
Orders, as discussed above. Additionally, the proposed rule change to
clarify that displayed and nondisplayed Priority Customer orders and
quotes resting on the Simple Book have priority over all displayed and
nondisplayed orders resting on the COB when a complex order Legs into
the Simple Book is consistent with current functionality and current
Rules describing how complex orders Leg into the Simple Book. This
additional clarity regarding the order in which resting orders and
quotes on the Simple Book will trade when a complex order Legs into the
Simple Book benefits investors, as it provides more detail regarding
the priority of executions on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes
the proposed priority ensures system stability and efficient executions
outweighs [sic]. The Exchange notes it is not novel for nondisplayed
interest to trade ahead of displayed interest.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 15 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is generally intended to add certain
system functionality to the Exchange's System in order to provide a
consistent technology offering for the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, as
Cboe Options currently offers (and intends to offer following its
migration to the same technology platform as the Exchange) complex
reserve order functionality. A consistent technology offering, in turn,
will simplify the technology implementation, changes, and maintenance
by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges. The proposed rule change will provide Users with additional
flexibility to manage and display their orders and control their
executions on the Exchange. This may encourage market participants to
bring additional liquidity to the market, which benefits all investors.
Additionally, this will provide Users with greater harmonization
between the order handling instructions available among the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will not burden intramarket competition because
the Reserve Order instruction on complex orders will be available to
all market participants. Additionally, use of the Reserve Order
instruction on complex orders is voluntary. The Exchange also believes
the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket
competition because this relates to an instruction on orders that are
submitted to the Exchange and how the Exchange's System will handle and
execute them. Additionally, nothing prevents other options exchanges
that offer complex orders from adopting a Reserve Order functionality
for complex orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change
will promote competition, as Complex Reserve Orders will provide Users
with additional flexibility to manage and display their complex orders
and additional control over their executions on the Exchange. This may
encourage market participants to bring additional liquidity to the
market, which benefits all investors.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CboeEDGX-2018-049, and should be submitted on or before December 18,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25883 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

DATE:	February 16, 2009

SUBJECT:	Regulatory Alternative Impacts for the Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing Area Source Category

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R Inc.

TO:		Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

1.0	INTRODUCTION

This memorandum presents the estimated impacts of regulatory
alternatives and generally available control technology (GACT) options
considered by EPA in the development of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing area source category. The memorandum contains a brief
summary of the background for the rulemaking, the general approach for
developing the impacts of the regulatory alternatives, identification of
the control measures, and the impacts of the control measures and
regulatory alternatives.

2.0	BACKGROUND

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) outlines the statutory
requirements for the EPA’s stationary source air toxics program.
Section 112(k) requires the development of standards for area sources
which account for 90% of the emissions in urban areas of the 33 urban
HAPs listed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS).  These
area source standards can require control levels which are equivalent to
either maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or GACT, as defined
in the CAA under section 112(d)(3) and section 112(d)(5), respectively.

The Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing category was added to the
categories being listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B)(ii) in November 2002 (67 FR 70427).  The portion of the
1990 112(k) inventory pertinent to Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing was compiled using the 2002 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes.  These manufacturing sectors
included NAICS codes 325510 (Paint and Coating Manufacturing), 325520
(Adhesive Manufacturing), 325910 (Printing Ink Manufacturing), and
325998 (All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing – Writing and Stamp Inks.  The Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing source category was listed based on the urban HAP
emissions of benzene, cadmium, chromium, lead, methylene chloride, and
nickel.

3.0  	GENERAL APPROACH

	This section provides a summary of the general approach that was used
to develop the impacts for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
category.  The general approach provides the steps that were used to
evaluate the HAP emission reductions and cost for each control measure
that was evaluated.

3.1	Steps

The general approach used to evaluate emission control methods as
possible candidates for GACT involved using the following steps:

Identify baseline emission levels,

Identify control measures applicable to the emission streams,

Identify saturation of existing control levels,

Estimate the impacts of control measures,

Identify regulatory alternative, and

Estimate the impacts of regulatory alternative.

The information and data used for these steps were collected from
literature searches, census statistics, AP-42 emissions factors, state
operating permits, and the National Emission Inventory (NEI) database.

3.2	Model Plants

  Model plants were developed to estimate the impacts of the control
options for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing sector.  Using
production data and employee size from the census, two model plants were
developed; small and large.  Small model plants were assumed to have
less than 19 employees and produce approximately 167,000 gallons of
product per year.  Large model plants were assumed to have 20 or more
employees and produce approximately 1,050,000 gallons of product per
year.  Based on the data from the census, which estimated there is a
total of 2,190 area source facilities operating in the U.S., we
estimated that there are 1,572 small model plant area source facilities,
and 618 large model plant area source facilities.  Using these model
plants, AP-42 emission factors for particulate matter (PM) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) could be used to determine facility emission
rates for the two model plants.  More detailed information on the
development of these model plants is available in a separate memorandum.
 A summary of the model plant production rates and the estimated
emissions for PM, PM2.5, VOC. volatile HAP and particulate HAP are
presented in Table 1.

Table 1.  Summary of HAP, PM, and VOC Emissions from the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Model Plants

Model Plant	Estimated Plant Production (Gal/yr)	Estimated Pigment Usage
(Tons/yr) 	PM Emissions

(Tons/yr)	PM2.5 Emissions

(Tons/yr)	VOC Emissions (Tons/yr)	HAP Emissions (Tons/yr)	Volatile HAP
Emissions (Tons/yr)	Particulate HAP Emissions (Tons/yr)

Small	167,000	558	5.58	2.64	15.7	1.549	1.545	0.004

Large	1,050,000	3,507	35.1	16.6	98.4	9.733	9.710	0.023

4.0	BASELINE EMISSIONS

Census data and the NEI database were used to estimate the baseline
emissions from the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing area source
sector.  In this memorandum, the population of area source Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing were estimated to be 2,190 facilities.
This memorandum also estimated the baseline HAP emissions from the area
source facilities using HAP emission data from the NEI database.  The
baseline HAP emissions level for the Paints and Allied Products
manufacturing area source category was estimated to be 4,761 tons per
year (Ton/yr).  The total listed urban HAP (benzene, cadmium, chromium,
lead, methylene chloride, and nickel) emissions were estimated to be 221
Ton/yr.

The baseline emissions were also estimated using AP-42 emission factors,
the model plant data, and the following assumptions:

95 percent of the existing facilities use process vessel covers;

79 percent of the existing facilities use a particulate control device;
and

7 percent of the existing facilities use a thermal oxidizer.

We also assumed that facilities that use a thermal oxidizer will also
use a particulate control device and process vessel covers to control
HAP emissions, and facilities that use a particulate control device also
use process vessel covers.  Using these assumptions the baseline HAP
emissions using the model plant emission factors are calculated to be
4,891 tons per year (Ton/yr), whereas the baseline HAP emissions using
the 2002 NEI data was estimated to be 4,761 Ton/yr.  Therefore, we
believe that the model plant emission factors accurately represent the
HAP emissions from the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
industry.

5.0	HAP CONTROL MEASURES

This section describes the potential control options for reducing
emission of HAP from the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
industry.  Because the control options are different for the different
types of urban HAP that are addressed by this rulemaking, the impacts
and control options are broken down into two groups; volatile HAP and
particulate HAP.  Volatile HAP is the largest component of the total HAP
emitted by the industry.  Volatile HAP comprised of 99.76 percent of the
total HAP listed in the 2002 NEI database.  Volatile HAP emissions occur
from splash loading of volatile organic chemicals into the process
vessel, and evaporation of volatile organic chemicals during the mixing
process.  Particulate HAP emissions occur from the addition of dry
pigments and other solids to the process vessel and during the pigment
milling or grinding manufacturing process.  Control options for each of
these types of HAP are discussed in the following sections.

5.1	Volatile HAP Control Measures

To determine the volatile HAP control measures for the Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing sector, information was obtained from state
operating permits and the NEI database.  In addition, recommended
management practices from the NPCA Coatings Care program were also
reviewed.

5.1.1	Identification of Controls

Information obtained from the 2002 NEI database, state permits, and
industry groups provided the following control options for reducing
volatile HAP:

Process Vessel Covers;

Add-on Control Technology.

Process vessel covers reduce the emissions of HAP by limiting the
exposure of volatile compounds to the atmosphere.  By covering the
process vessel, the solvent fugitive emissions loss in the coatings
product during the manufacturing process is reduced, which therefore
reduces the volatile HAP emissions from the process vessel. Previous
studies by EPA indicated that process vessel covers can reduce the
emissions from process vessels by approximately 40 percent.

Add-on control technology can be used to capture or oxidize volatile HAP
from the coating manufacturing process.  The use of add-on control
technology involves the use of a volatile HAP capture device to capture
the fugitive emissions, which are then routed to an add-on control
device.  Because of the low volatile HAP concentration of the fugitive
stream, the most feasible choice of add-on control technology is a
thermal oxidizer.  Thermal oxidizer can generally reduce volatile HAP
emissions by 98 percent.

5.1.2	Saturation of Controls

Data from State permits and the NEI database indicate that volatile HAP
add-on control technology was used only sparingly on process vessels.
Based on the information published in the State permits, only 3 of the
29 (10%) area source facilities used some type of volatile HAP add-on
control.  The 2002 NEI data listed only 8 of the 665 facilities (1.2%)
used an add-on control technology for the reduction of volatile HAP.

Information from the industry and visits to coating manufacturing
facilities show that process vessel cover are prevalent in the Paints
and Allied Products Manufacturing industry.  The Miscellaneous Organic
NESHAP (MON) estimated that approximately 95 percent of the facilities
use process vessel covers.

5.2	Particulate HAP Regulatory Alternatives

Particulate HAP emissions occur during the grinding of pigments process
step, and during the addition of pigments to the process vessel.
Control options for reducing these fugitive particulate HAP emissions
were obtained from state operating permits and the NEI database.

5.2.1	Identification of Controls

Add-on particulate HAP control was identified as a control option for
reducing emissions of particulate HAP.  A fugitive emission capture
device is used to capture the fugitive particulate emissions, which are
then routed to a particulate control device where the particulate is
filtered from the exhaust stream.  Typical particulate control add-on
control options used in the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
industry include a filtered bag particulate control system and a
cartridge filter particulate control system

The filtered bag particulate control system uses a series of bags that
filter the particulate HAP from the exhaust stream.  These systems are
commonly used by many different sources and are designed to reduce
particulate emissions by 98 percent.  The cartridge particulate control
device uses cartridge filter to capture the particulate from the exhaust
stream.  These systems are also designed to achieve 98 percent reduction
in particulate emissions.

5.2.2	Saturation of Controls

The data analysis showed that add-on controls for particulate HAP
emissions from process vessels are widespread throughout the industry.
The State permits indicated that 23 of 29 (79%) area source use add-on
controls for particulate emissions.  Discussions with industry groups
also confirmed that particulate control devices are commonly used in the
Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing industry.

6.0	CONTROL MEASURES AND IMPACTS

The impacts are divided into two sections: the impacts for volatile
control options, and the impacts of particulate control options.  The
impacts were estimated using the model plant emission factors for
volatile and particulate HAP.  To determine the number of existing area
source facilities that are currently controlled, we used the percentages
of area source facilities using control devices obtained from the state
permits.

6.1	Volatile HAP Control Measures

	The control options that were identified for reducing emissions of
volatile HAP were determined to be a thermal oxidizer and process vessel
covers.  For purposes of estimating the impacts, the thermal oxidizer
was assumed to reduce volatile HAP emissions by 98 percent, and the
process vessel covers were assumed to reduce volatile HAP emissions by
40 percent.

6.1.1	Model Plant Impacts of Volatile HAP Control Measures

	Using capital and annual cost estimates and the estimated model plant
VOC and volatile HAP emissions, the cost effectiveness of each of the
volatile control options were calculated.  A summary of the costs and
cost effectiveness values are presented in Table 2.  Process vessel
covers provide a HAP cost effectiveness of $28 per ton of volatile HAP
removed for small model plants and $34 per ton of volatile HAP removed
for large model plants.  The thermal oxidizer HAP cost effectiveness
values for the small and large model plants were calculated to be
$31,400 and $5,400 per ton of volatile HAP removed respectively.

6.1.2	Nationwide Impacts

The nationwide impacts for the volatile control options were calculated
assuming that 7 percent of the 2,190 area source facilities are
currently using a thermal oxidizer, and 95 percent of the 2,190 area
source facilities are using process vessel covers.  The model plant
memorandum estimated that 1,572 of the area source facilities are small
model plants and 618 of the area source facilities are large model
plants.  A summary of the nationwide impacts is presented in Table 3.
The total annual cost of requiring the use of process vessel covers to
reduce volatile HAP was estimated to be $5,435 with a total volatile HAP
reduction of 169 Tons/yr.  The total annual cost of requiring the use of
a thermal oxidizer to control volatile HAP is $96 million with a total
volatile HAP reduction of 7,433 Tons/yr.

Table 2.  Summary of Volatile Control Option Impacts for the Model
Plants

Volatile HAP Control Option	Total Facility Capital Cost of Process
Vessel Covers	Total Facility Annual Cost of Process Vessel Covers	VOC
Cost Effectiveness ($/Ton VOC reduced)	HAP Cost Effectiveness ($/Ton
volatile HAP reduced)

Small Model Plants

Process Vessel Coversa	$122	$17	$3	$28

Thermal Oxidationb	$122	$17	$3,091	$31,407

Large Model Plants

Process Vessel Coversa	$926	$132	$3	$34

Thermal Oxidationb	$926	$132	$536	$5,435

a Assumes 40% reduction of VOC and HAP.

b Assumes 98% reduction of VOC and HAP.

6.2	Particulate HAP Control Measures

	The control options that were identified for reducing emissions of
particulate HAP were determined to be a add-on particulate control
device.  Two types of particulate control devices were identified: a
pleated bag particulate control device and a cartridge particulate
control device.  Each of these particulate control devices can achieve
98 percent reduction in particulate HAP emissions.

Table 3.  Summary of the VOC and Volatile HAP Control Measure Impacts
for the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Industry

Regulatory Option	Number of Facilities to Apply Control Technology	Total
Annual Cost	Volatile Organic Compounds	Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants

	Uncontrolled  Emissions

(Ton/yr)	 Emissions Reduction (Ton/yr)	VOC Cost Effectiveness ($/Ton)
Uncontrolled Emissions

(Ton/yr)	 Emissions Reduction (Ton/yr)	HAP Cost Effectiveness ($/Ton)

Small Model Plant (1,572 Area Source Facilities)

Process Vessel Covers	79	$1,343	1,240	496	$3	122	48.8	$28

Thermal Oxidation	1,415	$67,287,495	22,216	21,771	$3,091	2,186	2,142
$31,407

Large Model Plant (618 Area Source Facilities)

Process Vessel Covers	31	$4,092	3,050	1,220	$3	301	120	$34

Thermal Oxidation	556	$28,756,876	54,710	53,616	$536	5,399	5,291	$5,435

Total (2,190 Area Source Facilities)

Process Vessel Covers	110	$5,435	4,290	1,716	$3	423	169	$32

Thermal Oxidation	1,971	$96,044,371	76,926	75,387	$1,274	7,585	7,433
$12,921

6.2.1	Model Plant Impacts of Particulate HAP Control Measures

	Using capital and annual cost estimates and the estimated model plant
PM, PM2.5, and particulate HAP emissions, the cost effectiveness for
each of the particulate control options were calculated.  A summary of
the costs and cost effectiveness values are presented in Table 2.  The
pleated bag and cartridge particulate control systems provide a
particulate HAP cost effectiveness of $1.6 million and $1.9 million,
respectively for small model plants, and $331,000 and $282,000,
respectively for large model plants.

Table 4.  Summary of Particulate Control Option Impacts for Model Plants

Control Technology	Total Capital Cost	Annual Cost	PM Cost per Ton
($/Ton)1	PM2.5 Cost per Ton ($/Ton)1	Particulate HAP Cost per Ton
($/Ton)1

Small Model Plant

Pleated Bag Particulate Control System	$23,537	$7,463	$1,365	$2,885
$1,903,911

Cartridge Particulate Control System	$15,198	$6,362	$1,163	$2,459
$1,622,942

Large Model Plant

Pleated Bag Particulate Control System	$23,537	$7,463	$217	$459	$331,115

Cartridge Particulate Control System	$15,198	$6,362	$185	$391	$282,251

1 Assumes 98% reduction of PM, PM2.5, and particulate HAP.

6.1.2	Nationwide Impacts

The nationwide impacts for the volatile control options were calculated
assuming that 79 percent of the 2,190 area source facilities are
currently using a particulate control device.  The model plant
memorandum estimated that 1,572 of the area source facilities are small
model plants and 618 of the area source facilities are large model
plants.  A summary of the nationwide impacts is presented in Tables 5,
6, and 7.  The total annual cost of requiring the use of a pleated

Table 5.  Summary of PM Control Measure Impacts for the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Industry

Regulatory Option	Number of Facilities to Apply Control Technology	Total
Annual Cost	Particulate Matter

	Uncontrolled Emissions

(Ton/yr)	 Emissions Reduction (Ton/yr)	PM Cost per Ton ($/Ton)

Small Model Plant (1,572 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	330	$2,462,899	1,841	1,805	$1,365

Cartridge Particulate Control	330	$2,099,438	1,841	1,805	$1,163

Large Model Plant (618 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	130	$970,233	4,563	4,472	$217

Cartridge Particulate Control	130	$827,051	4,563	4,472	$185

Total (2,190 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	460	$3,433,132	6,404	6,276	$547

Cartridge Particulate Control	460	$2,926,489	6,404	6,276	$466

Table 6.  Summary of PM2.5 Control Measure Impacts for the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Industry

Regulatory Option	Number of Facilities to Apply Control Technology	Total
Annual Cost	Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Microns

	Uncontrolled Emissions

(Ton/yr)	 Emissions Reduction (Ton/yr)	PM2.5 Cost per Ton ($/Ton)

Small Model Plant (1,572 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	330	$2,462,899	871	854	$2,885

Cartridge Particulate Control	330	$2,099,438	871	854	$2,459

Large Model Plant (618 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	130	$970,233	2,158	2,115	$459

Cartridge Particulate Control	130	$827,051	2,158	2,115	$391

Total (2,190 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	460	$3,433,132	3,029	2,969	$1,156

Cartridge Particulate Control	460	$2,926,489	3,029	2,969	$986

Table 7.  Summary of Particulate HAP Control Measure Impacts for the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Industry

Regulatory Option	Number of Facilities to Apply Control Technology	Total
Annual Cost	Particulate Hazardous Air Pollutants

	Uncontrolled Emissions

(Ton/yr)	 Emissions Reduction (Ton/yr)	Particulate HAP Cost per Ton
($/Ton)

Small Model Plant (1,572 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	330	$2,462,899	1.32	1.29	$1,903,911

Cartridge Particulate Control	330	$2,099,438	1.32	1.29	$1,622,942

Large Model Plant (618 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	130	$970,233	2.99	2.93	$331,115

Cartridge Particulate Control	130	$827,051	2.99	2.93	$282,251

Total (2,190 Area Source Facilities)

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	460	$3,433,132	4.31	4.22	$812,806

Cartridge Particulate Control	460	$2,926,489	4.31	4.22	$692,857

bag particulate control device was estimated to be $3.4 million with a
total particulate HAP reduction of 4.22 Tons/yr.  The total annual cost
of requiring the use of a cartridge particulate control device to
control particulate HAP is $2.9 million with a total particulate HAP
reduction of 4.22 Tons/yr.

7.0	REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE COSTS

	Nationwide costs and impacts were estimated for the regulatory
alternatives of requiring covers for control of volatile HAP and add-on
technology for particulate HAP control.  These impacts were calculated
assuming the use of process vessel covers for uncontrolled volatile HAP
facilities, cartridge particulate control devices for uncontrolled
particulate HAP small facilities, and pleated bag particulate control
devices for uncontrolled particulate HAP large facilities.  I summary of
the total capital and annual costs, and the volatile and particulate HAP
reductions are presented in Table 8.

Table 8.  Summary of Regulatory Alternative Costs for the

Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Industry

Regulatory Option	Number of Uncontrolled Facilities	Total Capital Cost
($)	Total Annual Cost ($/yr)	Total HAP Reduction (Tons/yr)

Process Vessel Covers (Small)	79	$9,639	$1,372	49

Process Vessel Covers (Large)	31	$28,702	$4,087	120

Cartridge Particulate Control	330	$5,015,472	$2,099,438	1

Pleated Bag Particulate Control	130	$3,059,761	$970,233	3

Total	570	$8,113,574	$3,075,130	173

8.0	OTHER AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS

8.1	Water Pollution Impact

	The generation of water pollution occurs from the addition of HAP
pollutants to the process water used at the facility.  Neither of the
control measures requires process water to operate, and neither control
generates any wastewater from their operation.  Therefore, there are no
water pollution impacts from the operation of these control measures.

8.2	Solid Waste Impact

	Solid waste impacts consist of the disposal of solid waste generated
from the particulate control system.  The solid waste consists of the
filter bags or cartridges and the collected particulate captured from
pigment grinding and pigment addition processes.  The collected
particulate contains metals, including the listed HAP metals.  Depending
on the concentration levels of these metals, the collected particulate
may be considered hazardous waste.  The particulate should be tested to
quantify the metal concentrations and local waste disposal regulations
should be reviewed prior to disposal of the filters and collected
particulate.  The disposal of the particulate materials is assumed to
occur annually, and the cost of testing and disposal is included in the
annual cost of the particulate control systems.

8.3	Energy Impacts

	Energy impacts consist of the fuel (natural gas) needed to operate the
combustion-based control device (thermal oxidizer) that is used to
comply with the regulatory alternatives.  It also includes the amount of
electricity to operate the control devices.  The estimated electricity
and fuel impacts are already included in the annual cost of the control
technologies.  No additional energy is required for the process vessel
covers or the replacement of dry pigments with wetted pigments.

 The 2002 NAICS codes and industry descriptions were obtained from the
U.S. Census website, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG,
Model Plants for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area
Sources, October 28, 2008.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG,
Population and Baseline HAP Emissions for the Paints and Allied Products
Area Source Category, February 5, 2009.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG,
Overview of the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source
Category, February 18, 2009.

 National Paint & Coatings Association, Coatings Care® — Providing
for a Cleaner, Safer, Coatings Industry,

  HYPERLINK "http://www.paint.org/cc/"  http://www.paint.org/cc/

 Control of Emissions from Ink and Paint Manufacturing Processes.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
 April 1992.  p. 4-3.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R Inc. to Melissa Payne
EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG, Development of HAP Reduction Costs for the Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source Category, February 16, 2009.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG,
Model Plants for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area
Sources, October 28, 2008.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R Inc. to Melissa Payne
EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG, Development of HAP Reduction Costs for the Paints and
Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source Category, February 16, 2009.

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG,
Model Plants for the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area
Sources, October 28, 2008.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  13


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15167-15168]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0188]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0081

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0081,
Alternate Compliance Program; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-0188] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0188], and
must be received by June 8, 2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Alternate Compliance Program.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0081.
    Summary: This information is used by the Coast Guard to assess
vessels participating in the voluntary Alternate Compliance Program
(ACP) before issuance of a Certificate of Inspection.
    Need: Sections 3306 and 3316 of 46 U.S.C. authorize the Coast Guard
to establish vessel inspection regulations and inspection alternatives.
Part 8 of 46 CFR contains the Coast Guard regulations for recognizing
classification societies and enrollment of U.S.-flag vessels in ACP.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of U.S.-flag inspected vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 154
hours to 174 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual
number of respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: March 29, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Division Chief, Directives and Publications.
[FR Doc. 2018-07157 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


I support eliminating mandatory retirement at for airline pilots at age 60.  I'm not convinced that age 60 was the appropriate age when it was established in 1960, but certainly spectacular advances in medical technology and practice, increased longevity, and greater awareness of healthy practices make today's 60-year old significantly "younger" than the 1960 version.  The argument that those now clamoring for a change "knew what the rules were when they signed on" does not seem relevant to the question of age discrimination to me.  That's like arguing to continue a discriminatory practice because it would be unfair if the group that formerly benefitted from the practice no longer did so.  Age discrimination is wrong.  Those who can still meet the FAA physical requirements and pass their checkrides should be allowed to continue past age 60.