[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29918-29919]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0293]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0066

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: 1625-0066,
Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and Additional
Response Requirements for Prince William Sound; 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 July 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2023-0293] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), 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: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
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. 3501 et seq., 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-2023-0293], and
must be received by July 10, 2023.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and
Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0066.
    Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) required the
development of Vessel and Facility Response Plans to minimize the
impact of oil spills. OPA 90 also required additional response
requirements for Prince William Sound. Shipboard Oil Pollution
Emergency Plans and Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans are
required of other vessels to minimize impacts of oil spills.
    Need: This information is needed to ensure that vessels and
facilities are prepared to respond in event of a spill incident. The
information is reviewed by the Coast Guard to assess the effectiveness
of the response plan.
    Forms: N/A.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels and facilities.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 88,381 hours a
year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: May 4, 2023.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-09848 Filed 5-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 26465]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11825]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85974; File No. 013-00127]

Initial Form ATS-N Filing; Notice of Extension of Commission
Review Period

May 31, 2019.
    On February 11, 2019, The Barclays ATS filed an initial Form ATS-N
(``Form ATS-N'') with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''). Pursuant to Rule 304 under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), the Commission may, after notice and an
opportunity for hearing, declare an initial Form ATS-N ineffective no
later than 120 days from the date of filing with the Commission, or, if
applicable, the extended review period. June 11, 2019 is 120 calendar
days from the date of filing. Pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), the
Commission may extend the initial Form ATS-N review period for up to an
additional 120 calendar days if the initial Form ATS-N is unusually
lengthy or raises novel or complex issues that require additional time
for review.
    The Barclays ATS was operating pursuant to an initial operation
report on Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7,
2019.\1\ The Barclays ATS filed an initial Form ATS-N on February 11,
2019. During the initial 120 calendar day review period, the Commission
staff has been reviewing the disclosures on The Barclays ATS's initial
Form ATS-N. In addition, the staff has been engaged in ongoing
discussions with The Barclays ATS about its disclosures and manner of
operations, as well as the requirements of Form ATS-N, to facilitate
complete and comprehensible disclosures that reflect the complexities
of those operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An NMS Stock ATS (as defined in Rule 300(k) of Regulation
ATS) that was operating pursuant to an initial operation report on
Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7, 2019 is a
``Legacy NMS Stock ATS.'' 17 CFR 242.301(b)(2)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form ATS-N requires NMS Stock ATSs to file with the Commission, and
disclose to the public for the first time, certain information,
including descriptions by the NMS Stock ATSs of their fees, the trading
activities by their broker-dealer operators and their affiliates in the
NMS Stock ATSs, their use of market data, their written standards for
granting access to trading on the NMS Stock ATSs, and their written
safeguards and procedures for protecting their subscribers'
confidential trading information required by revised Rule 301(b)(10) of
Regulation ATS. The initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with
Commission staff have revealed complexities about the operations of
Legacy NMS Stock ATSs including, among other things, matching
functionalities, means of order entry, order interaction and execution
procedures, conditional order processes, segmentation of orders, and
counterparty selection protocols. The Commission staff needs additional
time to review novel and complex issues such as these, which Commission
staff has discussed with The Barclays ATS. Extending the initial Form
ATS-N Commission review period for an additional 120 calendar days will
provide Commission staff an opportunity to continue its review of the
initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with The Barclays ATS.
    In the conversations between The Barclays ATS and Commission staff
about the initial Form ATS-N disclosures and the ATS operations,
Commission staff and The Barclays ATS have discussed a potential
amendment to update The Barclays ATS's disclosures regarding the
complexities of its operations. Extending the review period will enable
the NMS Stock ATS to amend its disclosures, if appropriate, and allow
Commission staff to conduct a thorough review of amendments to the
initial disclosures provided on the initial Form ATS-N.
    For the reasons given above, the Commission is extending the review
period of the initial Form ATS-N submitted by The Barclays ATS.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), October 9, 2019 is the
date by which the Commission may declare the initial Form ATS-N
submitted by The Barclays ATS ineffective.

    By the Commission.

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11825 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81125-81126]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1100]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sassafras River, Georgetown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Sassafras River (Route 213) Bridge, mile 10.0, in Georgetown, MD. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate mechanical repairs and gate
replacement. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the
closed to navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on January 10, 2011
until 5 p.m. on January 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1100 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1100 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Maryland State Highway Administration
owns and operates this bascule-type drawbridge and requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in
33 CFR 117.570 to facilitate mechanical repairs and barrier gate
replacement.
    The Sassafras River Bridge (Route 213), at mile 10.0, in
Georgetown, MD has a vertical clearance in the closed position to
vessels of four feet, above mean high water. Under normal operating
conditions, the draw would open on signal from November 1 through March
31, except from midnight to 8 a.m. when the draw only need open when at
least a six-hour advance notice is given.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Sassafras River (Route 213)
Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position
beginning at 5 a.m. on January 10, 2011 until 5 p.m. on January 21,
2011. The drawbridge will not be able to open in the event of an
emergency. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge
opening may do so at all times. Based on historical bridge log data
this may affect up to one vessel per day. Vessels with heights greater
than 4 feet have no alternate routes.
    The project being conducted during the month of January should have
the least impact on mariners due to the lack of waterway use. The Coast
Guard has and will continue to inform the users of the waterway through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners Closure periods for the
bridge will be announced so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-32380 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10442-10447]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04074]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0005; FRL-9907-09-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Delaware;
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a revision to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Delaware through the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Delaware's SIP
revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing implementation plan addressing regional haze (regional haze
SIP). EPA is proposing approval of Delaware's SIP revision on the basis
that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0005, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0005, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
III. EPA's Analysis of Delaware's Regional Haze Progress Report and
Adequacy Determination
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first
progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. On September 25, 2008, Delaware DNREC submitted the
State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 19, 2011, EPA finalized an approval of Delaware's
September 25, 2008 regional haze SIP to address the first
implementation period for regional haze. See 76 FR 42557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 24, 2013, DNREC submitted, as a SIP revision (progress
report SIP) a report on progress made in

the first implementation period towards RPGs for the Class I area
outside the State that is affected by emissions from Delaware's
sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also
included a determination that Delaware's existing regional haze SIP
requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional
haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA
is proposing to approve Delaware's September 24, 2013 SIP revision on
the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
308(h).

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR
51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the
approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions
achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I
area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources
and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the
state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved
regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration
to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing
regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other
state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the
state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas
due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other
state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3)
provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state
determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate
to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to
emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional
haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the state
determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate
to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to
emissions from sources within the state.

III. EPA's Analysis of Delaware's Regional Haze Progress Report and
Adequacy Determination

    On September 24, 2013, DNREC submitted a revision to Delaware's
regional haze SIP to address progress made towards RPGs of the Class I
area outside the State that is affected by emissions from Delaware's
sources. This progress report SIP also includes a determination of the
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. Delaware does not
have any Class I areas within its borders. However, in Delaware's
September 25, 2008 Regional Haze submittal, DNREC had identified,
through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back
trajectories in consultation with the regional planning organization,
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), only one Class I
area, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Brigantine Wilderness
Area), in the neighboring State of New Jersey, that can be potentially
impacted by Delaware sources. See 76 FR 42557.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be
addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); how Delaware's
progress report SIP addressed each element; and EPA's analysis and
proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of
the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional
haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside
the state. Delaware evaluated the status of all measures included in
its 2008 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress report SIP, Delaware
summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were
included in the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast States to assure reasonable progress toward
preventing any future, and remedying any existing impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas within MANE-VU. Delaware
discusses its implementation of best available retrofit technology
(BART) at the BART sources in the State and discusses how Delaware has
far exceeded the MANE-VU goal of 90 percent (%) reduction in sulfur
dioxide (SO2) at electricity generating unit (EGU) stacks
through implementation of its non-trading emissions control regulation
for EGUs, 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, and control requirements on
SO2 emissions at EGUs established in state consent decrees
and permits. Delaware discusses its implementation of 7 DE Admin. Code
1144 and 1148 which yielded nitrogen oxide (NOX) reductions
from generators and combustion turbines at EGUs and discusses
reductions from the shutdown of coal-fired boilers pursuant to a
Federal consent decree with Invista. While Delaware did not include any
regulation for low sulfur fuel oil in its regional haze SIP, Delaware
has subsequently implemented a low sulfur fuel oil regulation which
will be effective in 2016 and will reduce SO2 emissions
further. Delaware also discusses SO2 and NOX
reductions from a consent decree with the Delaware City Refinery which
required installation of controls and discusses emission reductions
from the NOX SIP Call and reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements within the State. Finally, Delaware
discusses its implementation of other measures included in its regional
haze SIP including Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
requirements and mobile source and non-road control measures.
    The State also discusses the status of those measures that were not
included in the MANE-VU coordinated course of action and were not
relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The State
notes that the emissions reductions from these measures will help
ensure the Class I area impacted by Delaware sources achieves its RPGs.
The measures include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for
EGUs and the 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) which Delaware expects will yield additional SO2
reductions. Delaware also discusses Federal and state consent
agreements as well as facility shutdowns and fuel conversions which
were not included in the regional haze SIP but which have yielded
emission reductions within the State.
    Delaware's progress report includes a discussion of the benefits
associated with each measure and quantified these benefits wherever
possible. In instances where implementation of a measure did not occur
on schedule, information is provided on the source category and the

measure's relative impact on the overall future year emissions
inventories. In aggregate, as noted later in section III.A of this
rulemaking action, the emissions reductions from the identified
measures exceed the original projections in Delaware's regional haze
SIP and result in lower emissions than originally projected.
    EPA finds that Delaware's analysis adequately addresses the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State documents the
implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP in
addition to describing additional measures not originally accounted for
in the coordinated course of action with MANE-VU states or in
Delaware's approved regional haze SIP. Delaware's progress report also
describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations other
than the regional haze program as they pertain to the State's sources.
The progress report SIP further highlights the effects of state
regulations, such as Delaware's multi-pollutant control regulation for
EGUs (7 DE Admin. Code 1146), as well as several Federal and state
consent decrees for various facilities.
    The State's progress report adequately discusses the status of key
control measures that Delaware relied upon in the first implementation
period to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze SIP, Delaware
identified SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as a key
contributor to regional haze in the MANE-VU region, with the EGU sector
as a major contributor to visibility impairment at the Class I area
impacted by Delaware sources. The State's progress report SIP provides
additional information on EGU control strategies and the status of
existing and future expected controls for Delaware's EGUs, with updated
actual SO2 emissions data for the years 2009 through 2011
reflecting significant reductions of SO2 in 2009, 2010, and
2011. In its regional haze SIP, Delaware determined that no additional
controls of non-EGU sources were reasonable for the first
implementation period. Delaware's progress report SIP demonstrates
SO2 reductions from EGUs in 2009-2011 far exceed projected
SO2 reductions by approximately 10,000 tons of
SO2 compared to the MANE-VU request to reduce SO2
emissions at EGUs.
    Regarding Delaware's implementation of BART, Delaware's progress
report SIP reviews the status of the State's BART sources (Edge Moor
Unit 4, Edge Moor Unit 5, Indian River Unit 3, and McKee Run Unit 3).
Delaware's regional haze SIP included Delaware's multi-pollutant EGU
regulation, 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOx emissions control for the BART sources pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i). The progress report SIP indicates that the
four BART sources have implemented the stringent control requirements
in 7 DE Admin. Code 1146 for NOx and SO2 emissions through
unit-specific annual NOx and SO2 mass emissions caps and
short-term (rolling 24-hour) NOx and SO2 emissions rate
limits (in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)).
Delaware has demonstrated that the BART sources complied with 7 DE
Admin. Code 1146 by installation of controls, fuel switches, and permit
restrictions on operating conditions. Delaware's progress report SIP
demonstrates significant SO2 reductions (and NOx reductions)
from EGUs in 2011 compared to 2002 and 2008 through implementation of 7
DE Admin. Code 1146.
    Delaware's regional haze SIP also established BART for particulate
matter (PM) for these same four sources through control requirements,
and Delaware's progress report SIP adequately demonstrates compliance
with and implementation of the PM BART at these sources which has
yielded PM reductions in addition to the PM reductions projected in the
regional haze SIP.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the
status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State adequately addressed
the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP including BART
and the coordinated action measures from MANE-VU, described the status
of significant measures resulting from EPA regulations and Federal and
state consent decrees other than the regional haze program as they
pertain to Delaware sources, and included the status of key control
measures that the State relied upon in the first implementation period
to make reasonable progress. EPA finds Delaware has demonstrated
significant reductions in SO2, NOx, and PM through
implementation of measures in its regional haze SIP and other Federal
and state measures.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject
to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP
and progress report SIP, Delaware focuses its assessment on the largest
contributor to visibility impairment, SO2 emissions from
EGUs. Delaware made this decision for the first implementation period
because of MANE-VU's findings that sulfate accounted for more than 70
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the northeast and mid-
Atlantic and because SO2 point source emissions in 2018 were
projected to represent the majority of the total SO2
emissions inventory.
    Overall, SO2 emissions have decreased significantly in
Delaware. Delaware states that the large reductions in SO2
emissions from EGUs resulted from compliance with 7 DE Admin. Code 1146
and from permit conditions and consent decrees which further restricted
emissions from EGUs. By 2011, the EGUs subject to 7 DE Admin. Code 1146
had reduced SO2 mass emissions by 21,905 tons per year (tpy)
(approximately 70%) from 2002 and reduced NOx mass emissions by 5,412
tpy (approximately 66%) from 2002.\2\ Delaware stated these actual
reductions are greater than the 8,681 tons of SO2 reductions
and zero tons of NOx reductions estimated from presumptive BART for
Delaware's BART sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Delaware's progress report SIP includes emissions data for
SO2 and NOx from EGUs from EPA's Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) for the years 2002-2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delaware also identifies specific additional SO2 and NOx
emissions reductions since the submittal in 2008 of its regional haze
SIP. Delaware identified reductions of 1,158 tpy NOx, 290 tpy fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), and 4,694 tpy of SO2
which resulted from unit shutdowns at several facilities and imposition
of a NOx permit limit on the Delaware City refinery. Delaware also
includes in its progress report SIP additional projected reductions of
SO2 emissions of 2,605 tpy (as calculated from the 2002 base
year) upon full implementation of its low-sulfur fuel regulation in
2016. Delaware states that these additional emissions reductions will
further help to ensure that the Brigantine Wilderness Area will achieve
its RPGs for visibility improvement by 2018.
    Delaware also submitted data for the other states identified as
significant contributors of SO2 to Brigantine Wilderness
Area showing similar trends in SO2 reductions from EGUs in
those states between 2002 and 2011. Because sulfates have been shown to
be the predominant species of concern to visibility impairment at
Brigantine Wilderness Area during the first round of regional haze
planning and SO2 EGU emissions are trending downward,
Delaware concludes in its progress report SIP that visibility
improvements should continue into the future from the reduced sulfate
contribution.

    EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The State provides estimates, and
where available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 and
NOX from EGUs in Delaware since the State submitted its
regional haze SIP. Although Delaware appropriately focused on
SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its progress report SIP
because the State had previously identified these emissions as the most
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Brigantine
Wilderness Area, the State also provided NOX emissions from
its EGUs as well. Delaware also adequately provided estimates and where
available, actual emissions reductions for certain non-EGU control
measures discussed in its regional haze SIP. Delaware's progress report
SIP has shown that Delaware has exceeded expected emissions reductions
and is expected to continue to do so in order to meet reasonable
progress goals by 2018.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide the following information
for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with
values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
\3\ (1) Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between
current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and
(3) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40
CFR 51.301
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Delaware does not have any Class I areas within its
borders, EPA therefore proposes to conclude that Delaware's progress
report SIP was not required to address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis
tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP
to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), Delaware presents
data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002
and 2008 and compares the 2002 and 2008 data for SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 to two sets of data for the same
pollutants, including the projected emissions inventory for 2018 (from
its 2008 regional haze SIP) and a ``hybrid'' emissions inventory
created using 2011 EGU emissions data from EPA's CAMD database combined
with 2008 emissions inventory data from non-EGU sources. Delaware's
hybrid emissions inventory also includes adjusted mobile source
emissions data for NOX, and PM2.5 from a 2012
model run using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)
model.\4\ Delaware states this hybrid inventory reflects the latest
data available to the State for comparison for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4).
Delaware claims its inventory data in its progress report SIP captures
the majority of SO2 emissions (as of 2011) because EGUs are
the largest emitters of SO2 and states the inventory is
adequate to show Delaware's significant progress in reducing
SO2 emissions in comparison to future year projections.
Delaware's emissions inventories include the following source
classifications: Stationary point sources, area sources, and off-road
and on-road mobile sources. As noted in section III.A.2 of this action,
Delaware's overall EGU SO2 emissions exceeded the reductions
projected in the State's regional haze SIP for 2018 due to compliance
with 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, additional fuel switches to natural gas,
shutdowns, and other measures implemented for EGUs not previously
projected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Delaware's progress report SIP focused on inventories of
SO2, NOX and PM2.5 because Delaware
states these pollutants are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year
period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time
period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, availability
of quality-assured data may not always correspond with this period and
there is an inevitable time lag in developing and reporting inventories
such that the most recent data may not be available. Therefore, EPA
believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period
states can practically select for tracking emissions changes to meet
this requirement. While Delaware used portions of its 2008 emissions
inventory for comparison with 2002, Delaware also supplemented this
2008 inventory with emissions data for 2011 for the EGU sector and with
additional adjustments for 2012 mobile emissions. EPA believes that
Delaware presented an adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for
SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 since the SIP was
submitted in 2008 to reflect trends over an approximate five year
period using the emissions data available to Delaware. Delaware's
hybrid emissions inventory including 2011 EGU emissions data shows
significant reductions of approximately 28,000 tons of SO2,
13,000 tons of NOX, and 200 tons of PM2.5 from
2008. Furthermore, Delaware has demonstrated that these significant
emissions reductions particularly of SO2 are well beyond
what was projected for 2018, demonstrating greater progress than
projected in 2008.\5\ EPA has also reviewed SO2 and
NOX emissions data from CAMD for Delaware's EGUs for 2012
and preliminary data for 2013 and notes similar significantly reduced
emissions from these sources in 2012 and 2013. EPA believes this
provides sufficient information to support the representativeness of
the five-year period evaluated by Delaware given that the State
identified SO2 emissions from the EGU sector as a main
contributor to visibility impairment at Brigantine Wilderness Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the State included SO2 and
NOX emissions data for EGUs in Tables 7 and 8 of the
progress report SIP using data from EPA's CAMD database, along with
trends comparing SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 actual emissions for 2002, 2008, and 2008 plus 2011
EGU data to projected 2018 emissions in Tables 39-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside
the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its
progress report SIP, Delaware states that sulfates continue to be the
biggest single contributor to regional haze at Brigantine Wilderness
Area. However, while Delaware focused its analysis on addressing large
SO2 emissions from point sources, the State also has
addressed NOX, and PM2.5. In its progress report
SIP, Delaware demonstrates that the State's SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions reductions have by 2012
already significantly exceeded the Delaware 2018 emissions inventory
projections for SO2, NOX, and PM2.5
and demonstrates these reductions have occurred prior to other,
additional state and Federal measures not included in the regional haze
SIP but which Delaware projects will further reduce SO2
emissions including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Delaware's new low-
sulfur fuel oil regulation, and the shutdown of Indian River Unit 3.
Therefore, Delaware states that it has not limited nor impeded progress
in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility at Brigantine
Wilderness Area.

    EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State adequately demonstrated
that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO2,
PM2.5, or NOX that have impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility in the Class I area
impacted by Delaware sources. The State provided data demonstrating
present emission reductions of SO2 from EGUs were greater
than originally projected for 2018 in the State's regional haze SIP and
show an overall significant downward trend in emissions over the period
2002 to 2011.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the
state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, Delaware states
that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its
original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable neighboring states
to meet all established RPGs. To support this conclusion, Delaware
notes that emissions of SO2 as calculated using the 2008
emissions inventory adjusted with 2011 EGU emissions are significantly
less than the 2018 projected emissions of SO2 (16,304 tpy
versus 20,511 tpy, respectively). In addition, Delaware expects even
further reduction of SO2 emissions, particularly for the EGU
sector, due to additional reductions not accounted for in the original
regional haze SIP as discussed in detail previously in this rulemaking
action, further supporting the State's conclusion that the regional
haze SIP's elements and strategies are sufficient to meet established
RPGs. Delaware discusses visibility data from the April 30, 2013
report, Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004-2011, prepared by the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), which
updated the progress at MANE-VU Class I areas during the five year
period ending in 2011 including information for Brigantine Wilderness
Area between 2000 and 2011 in the context of short- and long-term
visibility goals. The report indicates that haze levels on the best and
worst days from 2000 through 2011 have dropped at Brigantine Wilderness
Area. Delaware notes the NESCAUM report indicates the states continue
to be on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for improved visibility and that
further progress may occur through recently adopted or proposed
regulatory programs. Based upon the NESCAUM report and visibility data
within the report for Brigantine Wilderness Area, Delaware states
visibility improvement at Brigantine Wilderness Area has occurred for
the most impaired days and no degradation of visibility has occurred
for the least impaired days. Therefore, Delaware states that New
Jersey's RPGs for Brigantine Wilderness Area are on track to be met
based on visibility improvement and available data.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a
qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility
trends and other readily available information, including expected
emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates
that have not yet become effective. Delaware referenced the improving
visibility trends detailed in the NESCAUM report and the downward
emissions trends in the State, with a focus on SO2 emissions
from Delaware EGUs, that support the State's determination that the
State's regional haze SIP is sufficient for the neighboring state of
New Jersey to meet its RPGs for the Class I area impacted by Delaware
sources.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of the
state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any
modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. This
requirement only applies to states with Class I areas within their
borders. EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) because Delaware does not have any Class
I areas within its borders and Delaware is not required to address the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7).

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes the action
taken by Delaware under 40 CFR 51.308(h); Delaware's rationale for the
selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination
regarding the State's action.
    In its progress report SIP, Delaware took the action provided for
by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allow a state to
submit a negative declaration to EPA if the state determines that the
existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at
this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's
sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the findings
from the progress report SIP (as discussed in section III of this
rulemaking action), including the findings that: SO2
emissions from the State's sources have decreased beyond original
projections; additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the
State's regional haze SIP have occurred or will occur in the
implementation period; and the EGU SO2 emissions in Delaware
are already below the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze
SIP and are expected to continue to trend downward for the next five
years. EPA and Delaware also expect the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from EGUs in the other MANE-VU states to
continue. EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately
addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
trends at the Class I area impacted by the State's sources and the
emissions trends of the State's largest emitters of visibility-
impairing pollutants both indicate that Brigantine Wilderness Area,
which is the Class I area impacted by Delaware sources, will be able to
meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's Regional Haze five-year
progress report SIP revision, submitted September 24, 2013, as meeting
the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

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
proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this proposed rule to approve Delaware's regional haze
five-year progress report SIP revision does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-04074 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72514-72515]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4734-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Florida; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4734-DR), dated August 31,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 31, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 31, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Florida resulting from Hurricane Idalia beginning on August 27,
2023, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Florida.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the
Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).

    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. For a continuous 30-day period of the State's
choosing within the first 120 days from the start of the incident
period, you are authorized to fund assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance,
at 100 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brett H. Howard, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Citrus, Dixie, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Suwannee, and Taylor
Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Citrus, Dixie, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Suwannee, and Taylor
Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance.
    For a period of 30 days of the state's choosing within the first
120 days from the start of the incident period, FEMA is authorized
to provide federal funding for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal
assistance, at 100 percent of the total eligible costs.
    All areas within the State of Florida are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23208 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23626]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements
To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The final rule titled ``Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipage Mandate To Support Air Traffic Control
Service'' (75 FR 30160) requires performance requirements for certain
avionics equipment on aircraft operating in specified classes of
airspace within the United States National Airspace System. The rule
facilitates the use of ADS-B for aircraft surveillance by FAA air
traffic controllers to accommodate the expected increase in demand for
air transportation.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0728.
    Title: Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
Performance Requirements to Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 91 includes requirements for certain
avionics equipment on aircraft operating in specified airspace within
the United States National Airspace System (NAS). This collection
supports the information needs of the FAA by requiring avionics
equipment that continuously transmits aircraft information to be
received by the FAA, via automation, for use in providing air traffic
surveillance services. This information is collected electronically
without input from the human operator. Old information is overwritten
on a continuous basis. A 1-hour burden is submitted as a placeholder to
allow entry in OMB's burden inventory.
    Respondents: Approximately 64,339 aircraft operators will install
ADS-B Out equipment.
    Frequency: Information is collected automatically via the ADS-B Out
equipment.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour (placeholder for
automated collection).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1 hour (placeholder for automated
collection).

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 15, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-09231 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10927-10931]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80011; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2016-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend
Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET
Technology

February 10, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 16, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend various Exchange rules in connection with
a system migration to Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') supported technology.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 29,

2016.\3\ On January 30, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. On February 8, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79677 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96114 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made a minor correction to
correct a cross-reference in proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(4). In
Amendment No. 2, the Exchange revised proposed ISE Gemini Rule
702(d)(2) to clarify how the system would handle Market Orders if an
affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State. The Exchange
also revised proposed Rule 714 to add a new subsection (b)(1)(iii)
specifying that there will be three categories of options for
Acceptable Trade Range. Because Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 do not
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise
unique or novel regulatory issues, they are not subject to notice
and comment. Both amendments are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-isegemini-2016-17/isegemini201617.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities 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 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. As noted above, the Commission
received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect
the ISE Gemini system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.\7\ In
connection this system migration, as discussed below, the Exchange
intends to adopt certain trading functionality currently utilized on
Nasdaq Exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ INET is utilized across Nasdaq's markets, including The
NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and
NASDAQ BX, Inc. (collectively, the ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). See
Notice, supra note 3, at 96115.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96115. The Exchange anticipates
that it will begin implementation of the proposed rule changes in
the first quarter of 2017. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96115.
According to the Exchange, the system migration will be on a symbol
by symbol basis. The Exchange will issue an alert to members in the
form of an Options Trader Alert to provide notification of the
symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates. See id. The
Exchange has also separately filed a companion proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's opening process in connection with the
system migration to INET technology. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79679 (December 22, 2016), 81 FR 96062 (December 29,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Trading Halts

1. Cancellation of Quotes
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 702 (Trading Halts)
to conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx
Rule 1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
702(a)(2) by providing that during a halt the Exchange will maintain
existing orders on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the
revision, during the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes
and, for such orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications.
Currently, the Exchange maintains existing orders and quotes during a
trading halt. With respect to cancels and modifications during a
trading halt, the Exchange represents that the current process on ISE
Gemini will not change under the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing
orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt on the
Exchange would provide market participants with clarity as to the
manner in which interest will be handled by the system.\10\ The
Exchange believes that during a trading halt, the market may move and
create risk to market participants with respect to resting
interest.\11\ The Commission believes that that cancelling existing
quotes during a trading halt would provide market participants the
opportunity to update potentially stale quotes. Further, the Commission
notes that the Exchange will process cancels and modifications to
orders as well as quotes received during a halt. Finally, the
Commission further notes that the proposed treatment of quotes during a
halt is consistent with existing Phlx rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96121.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See Phlx Rule 1047(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Limit Up-Limit Down
    The Exchange proposes to replace existing ISE Gemini Rule 703A
(Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities)
with proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d).\13\ Specifically, proposed ISE
Gemini Rule 702(d) will provide that during a Limit State and Straddle
State in the underlying NMS stock \14\ the Exchange will not open an
affected option.\15\ However, provided the Exchange has opened an
affected option for trading, the Exchange will: (i) Reject Market
Orders \16\ and notify members of the reason for such rejection; \17\
(ii) continue to process Market Orders exposed at the NBBO pursuant to
Supplementary Material. 02 to ISE Rule 1901 and pending in the system,
and cancel such Market Orders if at the end of the exposure period the
affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State; \18\ and (iii)
elect Stop Orders if the condition is met, and, because such orders
become Market Orders, cancel them back and notify members of the reason
for such rejection.\19\ Moreover, when the security underlying an
option class is in a Limit State or Straddle State, the Exchange will
suspend the maximum quotation spread requirements for market maker
quotes in ISE Gemini Rule 803(b)(4) and the continuous quotation
requirements in ISE Gemini Rule 804(e).\20\ Additionally, the Exchange
will not consider the time periods associated with Limit States and
Straddle States

when evaluating whether a market maker has complied with its continuous
quotation requirements in ISE Gemini Rule 804(e).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange represents that proposed ISE Gemini Rule
702(d) is similar to Phlx Rule 1047(d). See Notice, supra note 3, at
96115.
    \14\ Proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d) states that capitalized
terms used in Rule 702(d) shall have the same meaning as provided
for in the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant
to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be amended from time to
time (the ``LULD Plan'').
    \15\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(1). The Exchange states
that its rules do not currently address the opening rotation in the
event that the underlying NMS stock is open but has entered into a
Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96116.
    \16\ See ISE Gemini Rule 715(a).
    \17\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(2).
    \18\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(2). If the affected
underlying is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State after the
exposure period, the Market Order will be processed with normal
handling. See id. The Exchange currently cancels Market Orders
pending in the system upon initiation of a Limit or Straddle State.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 96116.
    \19\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(3). ISE Gemini
currently does not elect Stop Orders that are pending in the system
during a Limit or Straddle State. Under the proposal, the Exchange
will elect Stop Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit
or Straddle State, if conditions for such election are met; however,
because such orders become Market Orders, they will be cancelled
back to the member with a reason for such rejection. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 96116.
    \20\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(4).
    \21\ See id. Proposed ISE Gemini Rule 703(d)(iv) is
substantively identical to ISE Gemini Rule 703A(c). See Notice,
supra note 3, at 96116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide
certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit
up-Limit Down states would impact the opening process as well as Market
Orders and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of
Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to
potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of
significant volatility.\22\ The Commission also notes that processing
rather than cancelling existing Market Orders is reasonable because
these Market Orders are only pending in the system if they are exposed
at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Gemini Rule
1901.\23\ Further, the Exchange believes that electing Stop Orders that
are pending in the system during a Limit or Straddle State, if
conditions for such election are met, would provide market participants
with the intended result.\24\ Lastly, the Commission notes that
proposed ISE Gemini Rule 702(d)(4) is substantively identical to
existing ISE Gemini Rule 703A(c), which is being deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96121.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96121-22.
    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Auction Handling During a Trading Halt
    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the
impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First,
the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a
trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM''). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an
order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and
eligible interest is executed.\25\ The Exchange proposes to amend the
current process by terminating the auction and not executing eligible
interest when a trading halt occurs.\26\ Similarly, the Exchange also
proposes to amend to ISE Gemini Rule 716 (Block Trades) to state that
if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the Block
Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism,
the Exchange will automatically terminate such auction without
execution.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96116.
    \26\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 723(d)(5).
    \27\ See proposed subsections (c)(3), (d)(3)(iv), and (e)(2)(iv)
of ISE Gemini Rule 716. The Exchange represents that this proposed
amendment represents the current process on ISE Gemini and is
generally consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c). See Notice, supra note
3, at 96116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM
auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited
Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt
occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their
interest will be handled.\28\ The Exchange believes that during a
trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting interest.\29\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule provides transparency and clarity
regarding the handling of these orders during a trading halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Market Order Spread Protection

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 711 (Acceptance of
Quotes and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled
Market Order Spread Protection.\30\ Pursuant to proposed ISE Gemini
Rule 711(c), if the NBBO is wider than a preset threshold at the time a
Market Order is received by the Exchange, the Exchange will reject the
order. The Exchange will notify members of the threshold with a notice,
and, thereafter, will notify members of any subsequent changes to the
threshold.\31\ The Exchange represents that the Market Order Spread
Protection will be the same for all options traded on the Exchange and
is applicable to all members that submit Market Orders.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Exchange states that this mandatory feature is
currently offered on NOM to protect Market Orders from being
executed in very wide markets. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96116.
See also NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96117. The Exchange proposes
to initially set the threshold to $5, similar to the threshold set
on NOM. See id. The Exchange states that NOM set the differential at
$5 to match the maximum bid/ask differential permitted for quotes on
that exchange. See id. ISE Gemini also uses a similar $5
differential. See id.
    \32\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the
proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks
associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions
at dislocated prices.\33\ The Commission also notes that the protection
is similar to a mandatory feature currently offered on NOM.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96116, 96122.
    \34\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Acceptable Trade Range

    Today, ISE Gemini offers a Price Level Protection that places a
limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote
to sell (buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids
(offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series.\35\
The Exchange proposes to replace the current Price Level Protection
with Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range.\36\ The Exchange states that the
proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism designed to prevent the
system from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market
from moving beyond set thresholds.\37\ The system will calculate an
Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order
or quote will be allowed to execute.\38\ The Acceptable Trade Range is
calculated (upon receipt of a new order or quote) by taking the
reference price, plus or minus a value to be determined by the Exchange
(i.e., the reference price-(x) for sell orders/quotes and the reference
price + (x) for buy orders).\39\ Upon receipt of a new order, the
reference price is the National Best Bid (``NBB'') for sell orders/
quotes and the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for buy orders/quotes. If
an order or quote reaches the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range
(the ``Threshold Price'') without being fully executed, then any
unexecuted balance will be cancelled.\40\ The Acceptable Trade Range
will not available for all-or-none orders.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See ISE Gemini Rule 714(b)(1).
    \36\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p). The Exchange states that the
proposed Acceptable Trade Range will not include the posting period
functionality available today on Phlx. See Notice, supra note 3, at
96117. The Exchange will not post interest that exceeds the outer
limit of the Acceptable Trade Range; rather the interest will be
cancelled. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96119. Orders that do not
exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range will post to
the order book and will reside on the order book at such price until
they are either executed in full or cancelled by the member. See id.
Unlike Phlx, ISE Gemini does not offer a general continuous re-
pricing mechanism. See id.
    \37\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96117.
    \38\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 714(b)(1)(i).
    \39\ The Exchange states that the Acceptable Trade Range
settings are tied to the option premium. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 96117, n.16. A table consisting of several steps based on the
premium of an option will be displayed on the NASDAQTrader.com Web
site and used to determine how far the market for a given option
will be allowed to move. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96118. Updates
to the table would be announced via an Exchange alert, generally the
prior day. See id.
    \40\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 714(b)(1)(ii).
    \41\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 714(b)(1)(ii). Today, ISE
Gemini's Price Level Protection rule is also not available for all-
or-none orders. See Notice, supra note 3, at 96117, n.17.

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

    The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range
at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.\42\ While the
Acceptable Trade Range settings will be tied to the option premium,
other factors will be considered when determining the exact
settings.\43\ For example, the Exchange states that acceptable ranges
may change if market-wide volatility is as high or if overall market
liquidity is low based on historical trends.\44\ To ensure a well-
functioning market, the Exchange believes that different market
conditions may require adjustments to the threshold amounts from time
to time.\45\ Further, while the Acceptable Trade Range settings will
generally be the same across all options traded on the Exchange, ISE
Gemini proposes to set them separately based on characteristics of the
underlying security.\46\ For example, the Exchange has generally
observed that options subject to the Penny Pilot program quote with
tighter spreads than options not subject to the Penny Pilot.
Accordingly, the Exchange will set Acceptable Trade Ranges for three
categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot Options trading in one cent
increments for options trading at less than $3.00 and increments of
five cents for options trading at $3.00 or more; (2) Penny Pilot
Options trading in one-cent increments for all prices; and (3) Non-
Penny Pilot Options.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96118.
    \43\ See id.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96118.
    \47\ See proposed ISE Gemini Rule 714(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should
prevent the system from experiencing dramatic price swings by
preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.\48\ The
Commission believes that the Acceptable Trade Range is reasonably
designed to prevent executions of orders and quotes at prices that are
significantly worse than the NBBO at time of an order's submission and
may reduce the potential negative impacts of unanticipated volatility
in individual options. Lastly, the Commission notes that the proposed
Acceptable Trade Range is similar to an existing mechanism on Phlx.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122.
    \49\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122; Phlx Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') order handling and opening obligations in ISE Gemini Rule
803(c).\50\ As described above, with the migration of ISE Gemini to the
Nasdaq INET architecture, the Exchange is adopting the Acceptable Trade
Range and opening rotation functionality currently offered on NOM and
Phlx, which do not contain similar requirements for the PMMs as in ISE
Gemini Rule 803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ISE Gemini Rule 803(c) provides that, in addition to the
obligations contained in Rule 803 for market makers generally, for
options classes to which a market maker is the appointed PMM, PMM
shall have the responsibility to: (1) As soon as practical, address
Priority Customer Orders that are not automatically executed
pursuant to Rule 714(b)(1) in a manner consistent with its
obligations under Rule 803(b) by either (i) executing all or a
portion of the order at a price that at least matches the NBBO and
that improves upon the Exchange's best bid (in the case of a sell
order) or the Exchange's best offer (in the case of a buy order); or
(ii) releasing all or a portion of the order for execution against
bids and offers on the Exchange; and (2) initiate trading in each
series pursuant to Rule 701 (Trading Rotations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no
longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range
and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.\51\ The
Exchange states that its proposal to conform the Exchange's opening
process to Phlx Rule 1017 will result in an opening initiated by the
receipt of an appropriate number of valid width quotes by the PMM or
Competitive Market Maker, instead of an opening process initiated by a
PMM.\52\ Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed Acceptable Trade
Range functionality will continue to provide order protection to
members without imposing any PMM obligations.\53\ The Exchange further
represents that NOM and Phlx do not impose similar PMM order handling
and opening obligations.\54\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that
these changes are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122. See also supra note 8.
    \52\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96119. See also supra note 8.
    \53\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96119. The Exchange states
that Phlx does not currently have similar roles for a Specialist on
its market. See id.
    \54\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Back-Up PMM

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to ISE
Gemini Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any ISE Gemini member
that is approved to act in the capacity of a PMM may voluntarily act as
a Back-Up PMM in an options series in which it is quoting as a
Competitive Market Maker (``CMM'').\55\ With the technology migration,
the Exchange believes that a Back-Up PMM is no longer necessary because
under INET the Exchange will not utilize the order handling obligations
present on the Exchange today.\56\ The Exchange further represents that
the proposed new opening process obviates the importance of such a role
because it would no longer rely on a market maker to initiate the
opening process.\57\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that these
changes are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See ISE Gemini Rule 803, Supplementary Material .03.
    \56\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96119.
    \57\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96122. See also supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Market Maker Speed Bump

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 804 (Market Maker
Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk
functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection
mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an
options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during
a set time period (``Market Maker Speed Bump'').\58\ In addition, the
Exchange offers a market-wide risk protection that removes a market
maker's quotes across all classes if a number of curtailment events
occur (``Market-Wide Speed Bump'').\59\ ISE Gemini Rule 804(g)
currently requires that market makers set curtailment parameters for
both the Market Maker Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today,
if a market maker does not set these parameters, for each Market Maker
Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump, the trading system rejects
their quotes.\60\ With the technology migration, the Exchange proposes
to provide default curtailment parameters, which will be determined by
the Exchange and announced to members.\61\ The Commission believes that
this change is consistent with the Act and notes that, although the
Exchange will establish default curtailment settings, market makers
will have discretion to set different curtailment settings appropriate
for their trading and risk tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See ISE Gemini Rule 804(g)(1).
    \59\ See ISE Gemini Rule 804(g)(2). Market makers may request
the Exchange to set the market wide parameter to apply to just ISE
Gemini or across ISE Gemini and ISE. See id.
    \60\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96120.
    \61\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Anti-Internalization

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material at .03 to
ISE Gemini Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-
internalization rule. Today, ISE

Gemini's functionality prevents Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') orders
entered by a market maker from trading with the market maker's own
quote.\62\ The Exchange proposes to replace this self-trade protection
with anti-internalization functionality currently offered on Phlx.\63\
The Exchange proposes to provide that quotes and orders entered by
market makers using the same member identifier will not be executed
against quotes and orders entered on the opposite side of the market by
the same market maker using the same member identifier. In such a case,
the system will cancel the resting quote or order back to the entering
party prior to execution. The proposed anti-internalization
functionality will not apply in any auction. The Exchange states that
this proposed functionality does not modify the duty of best execution
owed to public customer orders.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See id.
    \63\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).
    \64\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist
market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions
potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from
the same firm performing the same market making function.\65\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to
prevent the unwanted execution of quotes and orders entered by market
makers using the same member identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Minimum Execution Quantity Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 715 (Types of
Orders) to remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).\66\ The
Exchange states that the utilization of minimum quantity orders by its
members has been very limited, and therefore proposes to remove this
order type.\67\ Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to remove two
references to minimum quantity orders in Supplementary Material .02 to
ISE Gemini Rule 713 and in Supplementary Material .04 to ISE Gemini
Rule 717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ A Minimum Quantity Order is an order type that is available
for partial execution only for a specified number of contracts or
greater. A member may specify whether any subsequent executions of
the order must also be for the specified number of contracts or
greater, or if the balance may be executed as a regular order. If
all executions are to be for a specified number of contracts or
greater and the balance of the order after one or more partial
execution(s) is less than the minimum, such balance is treated as
all-or-none. See ISE Gemini Rule 715(q).
    \67\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the removing the minimum quantity order
type would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce
the complexity of its order types.\68\ The Exchange further represents
that the utilization of minimum quantity orders by its members has been
very limited and is currently being utilized to transact less than 1%
of the Exchange's volume.\69\ Accordingly, the Commission believes it
is appropriate for the Exchange to remove references to the minimum
quantity order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96123.
    \69\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96120 n.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Delay of Implementation of Directed Orders and Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders

    Currently, ISE Gemini rules provide for the use of Directed Orders
\70\ and Qualified Contingent Cross Orders.\71\ The Exchange proposes
to amend ISE Gemini Rules 721 (Crossing Orders) and 811 (Directed
Orders) to note that these functionalities will not be available as of
a certain date in the first quarter of 2017 to be announced in a
notice. The Exchange represents that it will recommence the Directed
Orders and Qualified Contingent Cross functionalities on ISE Gemini
within one year from the date of the filing of the proposed rule
change. Otherwise, the Exchange will file a rule proposal with the
Commission to remove these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See ISE Gemini Rule 811.
    \71\ See ISE Gemini Rule 715(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it proposes to delay the
implementation of the Directed Order and Qualified Contingent Cross
Order functionalities on ISE Gemini to provide the Exchange additional
time to rebuild the required technology on the new platform.\72\ The
Exchange further represents that members have been given adequate
notice of the implementation dates and that the Exchange will provide
further notifications to members to ensure clarity about the delay of
implementation of these functionalities.\73\ The Commission believes
that the proposed rule change helps ensure clarity about the delay of
implementation of this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 96123.
    \73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the
Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\74\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISEGemini-2016-17), as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03101 Filed 2-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P