[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 9351]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04336]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82782; File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Concerning the ICE Clear Europe Wind-Down Plan

February 27, 2018.
    On December 29, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2017-017 (``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
concerning the ICE Clear Europe Wind-Down Plan. The Proposed Rule
Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 19,
2018.\3\ To date, the Commission has not received any comment letters
to the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 82497 (Jan. 12, 2018), 83 FR 2847
(Jan. 19, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-017) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \4\ provides that, within 45
days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission
may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the Notice for
this Proposed Rule Change is March 5, 2018. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period. In order to provide the Commission with
sufficient time to consider the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which
to take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\5\ designates April 19, 2018 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2017-
017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04336 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63502-63503]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9987-47-OA]

Request for Nominations of Candidates for EPA's Science Advisory
Board 2019-2021 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards
Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office invites nominations of scientific
experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for
appointment to the SAB's 2019-2021 Scientific and Technological
Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee described in this document.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
December 31, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations
may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA
Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at the EPA
SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) is a chartered Federal
Advisory Committee that provides independent scientific and technical
peer review, advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the
technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the
SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. The SAB STAA
Committee is an ad hoc subcommittee of the SAB that provides advice
through the chartered SAB on recommendations for awards under EPA's
STAA program. The SAB and the 2019-2021 STAA Committee will comply with
the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural
policies.
    The EPA established the STAA in 1980 to recognize Agency scientists
and engineers who published their work in the peer-reviewed literature.
The STAA Program is an agency-wide competition to promote and recognize
scientific and technological achievements by EPA employees. The STAA
program is administered and managed by the EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Each year the SAB has been asked to review the EPA's
STAA nominations and make recommendations to the Administrator for
monetary awards. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts
to serve on the SAB 2019-2021 STAA Committee, which operates under the
auspices of the SAB.
    Request for nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of experts in the following disciplines as they relate to
human health and the environment: Air pollution exposure; chemical
engineering; civil and environmental engineering; decision science;
ecology; environmental economics; groundwater and surface water
contaminant fate and transport; human health effects and risk
assessment; monitoring and measurement methods for air and water;

risk management; transport and fate of contaminants; water quality; and
water and wastewater treatment processes. The SAB Staff Office is
especially interested in scientists and engineers with expertise
described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality;
aquatic and ecological toxicology; chemical safety; community
environmental health; dosimetry and inhalation toxicology; drinking
water; ecological modeling; ecological risk assessment; ecosystem
restoration; ecosystem services; energy and the environment;
epidemiology; green chemistry; homeland security; human health
dosimetry; mechanisms of toxicity and carcinogenicity; metabolism;
statistics; sustainability; toxicokinetics; toxicology; waste and waste
management; and water re-use.
    Process and deadline for submitting nominations: Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas
of expertise described above for possible service on the 2019-2021 STAA
Committee identified in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in
electronic format (preferred) following the instructions for
``Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels and Ad hoc Committees Being
Formed,'' provided on the SAB website (see the ``Nomination of
Experts'' link under ``Current Activities'') at http://www.epa.gov.sab.
    To receive full consideration, EPA's SAB Staff Office requests
contact information about the person making the nomination; contact
information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of
expertise of the nominee; the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae;
sources of recent grant and/or contract support; and a biographical
sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational
background, research activities, and recent service on other national
advisory committees or national professional organizations.
    Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who
are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should
contact Dr. Thomas Armitage as indicated above in this notice.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
December 31, 2018. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified
candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability,
or ethnicity.
    The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff, will be posted in a List of Candidates on
the SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public comments on the List
of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days. The public will be
requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on
nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating
candidates.
    For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced review committee includes
candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant
scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced
by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of
experience. The SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the
List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves,
and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff
Office. Selection criteria to be used for committee membership include:
(a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience
(primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c)
absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an
appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees,
subcommittees and advisory committees; and, (f) for the committee as a
whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
    The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial
conflicts of interest will include a review of the ``Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees'' (EPA Form
3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to
determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's
public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal
advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the
appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation.
The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/ethics?OpenDocument.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-26693 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63194-63196]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25076]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73370; File No. SR-CME-2014-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
CME Rule 816

October 16, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 7, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\4\ thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is proposing to make certain changes to CME Rule 816 which
governs guaranty fund deposits. More specifically, the proposed changes
would amend CME Rule 816 (Guaranty Fund Deposit) to establish CME risk
management staff as responsible for determining one of the two
alternative minimum amounts for clearing members' Base Guaranty Fund
deposits. The proposed changes would only impact the CME Base Guaranty
Fund and would not impact the CME CDS Guaranty Fund.

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

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

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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and operates a
substantial business clearing futures and swaps contracts subject to
the jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME is proposing to make certain changes
to CME Rule 816 which governs guaranty fund deposits. The proposed
changes would only impact the CME Base Guaranty Fund and would not
impact the CME CDS Guaranty Fund.
    More specifically, the proposed changes would amend CME Rule 816
(Guaranty Fund Deposit) to establish CME risk management staff as
responsible for determining one of the two alternative minimum amounts
for clearing members' Base Guaranty Fund deposits. Under current Rule
816, the minimum Base Guaranty Fund deposit of each clearing member is
calculated as the greater of (a) a minimum amount specified by the
Clearing House Risk Committee (``CHRC'') or (b) the clearing member's
proportionate share of the ``Aggregate Guaranty Fund Deposit,'' an
amount which is also determined by the CHRC.
    Revised Rule 816 would empower CME risk management staff rather
than the CHRC to determine the Aggregate Guaranty Fund Deposit, thus
enabling risk management staff to adjust the minimum Base Guaranty Fund
deposit as necessary to remain in compliance with CME's financial
resource requirements under applicable Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') regulations. The

`greater of' measure established in Rule 816 will remain unchanged,
meaning risk management staff may not establish a clearing member's
minimum Base Guaranty Fund deposit lower than the minimum amount
specified by the CHRC.
    Additionally, a paragraph referencing Kansas City Board of Trade
(``KCBT'') clearing permit holders is being removed from CME Rule 816
as the permit holders' status has expired pursuant to the terms of the
KCBT-Chicago Board of Trade merger agreement.
    As highlighted above, the proposed changes in this filing are
limited to CME's Base Guaranty Fund and therefore do not impact CME's
CDS guaranty fund. The proposed rule change would become effective
immediately but would be operationalized on October 17, 2014.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act.\5\ The proposed changes would enhance CME's ability to manage
risks posed by its clearing members by enabling clearing house staff to
require a higher minimum Base Guaranty Fund deposit amount as needed.
Allowing staff rather than the CHRC to determine the Aggregate Guaranty
Fund Deposit amount provides CME with additional risk management
flexibility. For these reasons, the proposed changes should be seen to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed changes are limited to CME's Base
Guaranty Fund, which means the proposed changes are limited in their
effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
CFTC. As such, the proposed CME changes are limited to CME's activities
as a DCO clearing products that are not security-based swaps. CME notes
that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the
Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies
underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for
over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest.
    Because the proposed changes are limited in their effect to
products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC and are
therefore offered under CME's authority to act as a DCO, the proposed
changes are properly classified as effecting a change in an existing
service of CME that:
    (a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect
to products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps, and forwards that are not security forwards; and
    (b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing
operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to
securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
    As such, the changes are therefore consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \7\ and are properly filed under
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \9\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes
would enhance CME's ability to manage risks posed by its clearing
members by enabling clearing house staff to require a higher minimum
Base Guaranty Fund deposit amount as needed. Allowing staff rather than
the CHRC to determine the Aggregate Guaranty Fund Deposit amount
provides CME with additional risk management flexibility. Further, the
proposed changes relate only to products that fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, these proposed changes do not affect
the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in any way and
therefore do not impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2014-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such

filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CME and on CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-41
and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25076 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 FACT SHEET DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES NPDES PERMIT NO.: MA0000833 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:

Exxon Company, USA Everett Terminal 52 Beacham Street Everett, Massachusetts 02149 NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY WHERE DISCHARGE OCCURS:

Exxon Company, USA Everett Terminal 52 Beacham Street Everett, Massachusetts 02149 RECEIVING WATER: Island End River to Mystic River CLASSIFICATION: SB I. Proposed Action, Type of Facility, and Discharge Location The above named applicant has applied to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for reissuance of an NPDES permit to discharge into the designated receiving waters. The facility is engaged in the storage and distribution of petroleum products. The discharge is from storm water run off, ground water infiltration, and operation and plant maintenance.

II. Description of Discharge A quantitative description of the discharge in terms of significant effluent parameters based on reapplication and discharge monitoring data is shown on Attachment C.

III. Limitations and Conditions The effluent limitations of the draft permit, the monitoring requirements, and any implementation schedule ( if required) may be found in the draft NPDES permit. IV. Permit Basis and Explanation of Effluent Limitation Derivation A. General Requirements The Clean Water Act ( CWA) prohibits discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit, unless such a discharge is otherwise authorized by the CWA. The NPDES permit is the mechanism used to implement technology and water quality based effluent limitations and other requirements, including monitoring and reporting. This draft NPDES permit was developed in accordance with various statutory and regulatory requirements established pursuant to the CWA and any State regulations. The majority of regulations governing the EPA NPDES permit program are found at 40 CFR Parts 122, 124, 125 and 136.

EPA is required to consider technology and water quality based requirements when developing permit limits. The criteria and standards that EPA must use to determine technology based requirements are set in 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart A. Requirements under Section 301 ( b) of the CWA and/ or requirements established on a case by case basis under Section 402 ( a)( 1) should be included in the permit.

The CWA requires that all discharges, at a minimum, must meet effluent limitations based on technological capability of dischargers to control pollutants in their discharge. Section 301 ( b)( 1)( A) of the CWA requires the application of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available ( BPT) with the statutory deadline for compliance being, July 1, 1977, unless otherwise authorized by the CWA. Section ( 301)( b)( 2) of the CWA requires the application of Best Conventional Control Technology for conventional pollutants, and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT) for non conventional and toxic pollutants. The compliance deadline for BCT and BAT is as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated and no later than March 31, 1989.

EPA has not promulgated National Effluent Guidelines for storm water discharges from bulk storage petroleum facilities. In the absence of published technology based effluent guidelines, the permit writer is authorized under Section 402( a)( 1)( B) of the CWA to establish effluent limitations on a case by case basis using Best Professional Judgement ( BPJ).

Under 301( b)( 1)( c) of the CWA, discharges are subject to effluent limitations based on water quality standards and to the conditions of State certifications under Section 401 of the CWA. Receiving stream requirements are established according to numerical and narrative standards adopted under State and/ or Federal law for each stream use classification. Furthermore the permit must conform to the conditions established pursuant to a State certification under Section 401 of the CWA that meet the requirements of 40 CFR § 124.53 and § 124.55. EPA regulations pertaining to permit limits based upon water quality standards and state requirements are contained in 40 CFR § 122.44 ( d).

Section 101( a)( 3) of the CWA specifically prohibits the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The State of Massachusetts has a similar narrative criteria in their water quality regulations that prohibits such discharges, see Massachusetts 314 CMR 4.05( e). The draft permit does not allow for the addition of chemicals in amounts which would produce a toxic effect to aquatic life.

The general conditions of the permit are based on 40 CFR § 122.41 and consist primarily of management requirements common to all permits. The effluent monitoring requirements have been established to yield data representative of the discharge under authority of Section 308( a) of the CWA in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.41( j), § 122.44( i), and § 122.48.

B. Additional Requirements EPA's antibacksliding provision at 40 CFR § 122.44( l) prohibit the relaxation of permit limits, standards, and conditions unless the circumstances on which previous permit was based have materially and substantially changed since the time the permit was issued. Therefore, technology based effluent limitations in the draft permit must be as stringent as those in the current permit. Relaxation of these limits is only allowed when cause for permit modification is met, see 40 CFR § 122.62. Effluent limits based on BPJ, water quality, and State Certification requirements must also meet the antibacksliding provisions found in Section 402( o) and 303( d)( 4) of the CWA.

The circumstances at the facility have not substantially changed since the issuance of the last NPDES permit, and therefore the limits in the draft permit are no less stringent than what are in the previous permit.

C. Facility Description and Discharges The Exxon Company is a marketing terminal which stores and distributes a range of petroleum products, including unleaded gasoline, heating oil, Number 6 heavy fuel oil, diesel and aviation fuels, toluene, xylene, and varsol.

The bulk of the site area consists of the petroleum product tanks. Each of the storage tanks is enclosed in an unlined area by earthen dike or concrete walls. These tank diked areas are designed to contain the contents of the enclosed tanks plus a 10% added volume to hold any fire extinguishment chemicals or water and precipitation. The dikes are required for safety to prevent the hydrocarbons from spilling to the waterway or from one tank area to another.

The receiving water, Island End River ( Boston Harbor) , is designated Class SB by the State of Massachusetts. Waters assigned to this class are designated for the uses of protection and propagation of fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and for secondary contact recreation. Also, there is a limited fishery in the Mystic River and Boston Harbor which demands reduction of chemical pollutants that are harmful to human health.

D. Proposed Permit Effluent Limitations and Conditions Section 402( p) of the Clean Water Act requires that EPA issue NPDES permits for storm water discharges which were permitted prior to February 4, 1987, 40 CFR § 122.26( a)( 1)( i). Since this facility is not associated with an industrial activity as defined by § 122.26( b)( 14)( i) through ( xi), storm water discharges cannot be authorized by EPA's general industrial storm water permit, ( 57 FR 44438; 60 FR, 50804).

The draft permit includes conditions to better regulate potential discharges of untreated tank bottom drawoff alone or in combination with storm water to the receiving water by conducting a Whole Effluent Toxicity Test on the drawoff water. Implementation of Best Management Practices, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will better regulate ancillary operations such as materials storage, facility site runoff, product blending, and product loading and unloading, which could potentially introduce significant amounts of toxic and hazardous pollutants into Island End River.

Storm water discharges from activities associated with bulk petroleum stations and terminal operations must satisfy best conventional technology ( BCT) and best available technology ( BAT) requirements and must comply with more stringent water quality standards if BCT and BAT requirements are not adequate. On September 25, 1992, EPA promulgated through its General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity that the minimum BAT/ BCT requirement for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity is a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), 57 FR, 44438. Using the General Permit as guidance, EPA has included a requirement for a SWPPP in the draft permit based on best professional judgement. In addition to a SWPPP, EPA Region I has decided to include numeric effluent limitations in the draft permit to ensure that petroleum products do not contribute to violations of the State's water quality standards.

Thus the draft NPDES permit for Exxon Company, authorizing the discharge of treated storm water, includes a Best Practices Management Plan, numeric effluent limitations which are within applicable water quality standards and requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan for additional protection of the environment.

Flow Typically effluent consist of treated storm water flow from diked and non diked tank areas, and groundwater infiltration . The permittee is required to report average monthly and daily maximum flow through the oil/ water separation system. The effluent from the terminal discharges to Island End River which leads to Mystic River and eventually Boston Inner Harbor.

Groundwater infiltration to the storm water collection system and into an inactive former effluent holding pond is the source of almost all the daily discharge from the terminals. Storm water runoff is the most significant of intermittent flow and varies with intensity of participation. Other potential daily and intermittent flow components include boiler blowdown, tank water drawoff, compressor cooling water, water from marine terminal drip pans, and hydrostatic testing.

Flows in excess of 3000 gpm go directly to the wet well and are not treated through the oil/ water separator. During storm events with heavy precipitation, two 11,500 gpm vertical turbine pumps are manually activated to lift excess flows directly to the culvert, bypassing Holding Tank 140. Between October 1998 and September 1999 there were three bypass events which is a 25% reduction from the previous year.

Oil and Grease ( O& G) The draft permit limit for O& G remains unchanged at 15 mg/ l, daily maximum, with a monthly monitoring frequency. This technology based limit is determined by BPJ and demonstrated performance. Originally this effluent limitation was established by EPA Headquarters as guidance to, and as a means of establishing a categorization within, the petroleum marketing terminals and oil production facilities categories. Performance data indicate that this effluent limitation can be achieved through proper operation of an oil/ water separator and best management practices ( BMP).

Total Suspended Solids ( TSS)

Total suspended solids have been limited in the draft permit to eliminate the potential carryover of petroleum fractions to the receiving water ( s) by adsorption to particulate matter or suspended solids.

The TSS limits in the draft permit, 30 mg/ l average monthly and 100 mg/ l maximum daily, will remain the same as in the existing permit.

In drafting the storm water discharge permits for the bulk storage terminals in Region I, EPA made a BPJ determination that the technology guidelines promulgated at 40 CFR part 423 Steam Electric Power Point Generating Point Source Category, for point source of low volume wastewater, were appropriate to control the discharge of sediment particles and oils from bulk storage petroleum terminals in the region. Like oil terminals, steam electric generating facilities frequently include bulk storage of petroleum products, and these limits are typical for dischargers of storm water from such facilities. Data from monthly discharge monitoring reports indicates that TSS effluent limitations have been achieved at this facility unless there is a bypass event. During bypass events, the facility, at times exceeds the TSS average monthly limit. This is the result of rapid flushing of the storm water drainage system during a high intensity rainfall following a long period of drought.

pH The pH permit limit range has been established in accordance with state Water Quality Standards. The range is between 6.5 and 8.5 and are state minimum and maximum criteria for Class SB waters. In addition there shall be no change from background conditions that would impair any uses assigned to the receiving water class.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ( PAHs) are a class of organics consisting of polycyclic aromatic rings which are present in oil and petrochemicals. These pollutants will adsorb strongly onto suspended particulates and biota. Therefore, the PAHs transport will be determined largely by the hydrogeologic condition of the aquatic system. The ultimate fate of those PAHs which accumulate in the aquatic sediment is believed to be biodegradation and biotransformation by benthic organisms. Several PAHs are well known animal carcinogens, while others are not carcinogenic alone but can enhance the response of the carcinogenic PAHs. See Attachment B for a list of PAHs considered in this permit. For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure to PAHs through ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration should be zero based on the non threshold assumption for these chemicals. However, a zero level may not be attainable at the present time. The corresponding EPA recommended criterion, set forth in 45 FR 79318 ( November 28, 1980), estimated at 10 6 ( one in a million) increase of cancer risk over the lifetime, is 31.1 nanograms per liter ( ng/ 1) based on consumption of contaminated fish. Therefore, based upon EPA recommended human health criterion of 31.1 ng/ l for contaminated fish consumption, the effluent limitation, 31.1 ng/ l, will remain the same in the draft permit as it is in the existing permit.

Finally, in view of evidence of PAH induced animal carcinogenicity, the established limit for the sum of 16 PAHs has also been set at 31.1 ng/ l to prevent the persistence of such chemicals in the receiving water through biological and / or chemical processes such as sediment absorption/ adsorption, and the subsequent deleterious effects to the diverse biota of Island End River.

The 31.1 ng/ l effluent limitation for PAHs is many orders of magnitude below the current Practical Quantitation Limit ( PQL) for determining PAHs in aqueous solutions. Information on PQL's from oral communication with personnel at EPA's Lexington Laboratory indicates that the PQL for PAHs ranges from 5 to 10 ug/ l ( 5,000 to 10,000 ng/ 1). Therefore, due to the large difference between the effluent limitation ( 31.1 ng/ 1) and the lowest reliable measure of detectable amounts of PAHs in aqueous solutions ( 5,000 to 10,000 ng/ 1), compliance/ noncompliance with this permit's effluent limitation will be judged on the PQL for PAHs. PQL has been specified in this draft permit as 10 ug/ l for a single PAH compound and 50 ug/ l for the sum of any of the specified 16 PAH compound detected. These values of 10 and 50 ug/ l cannot be changed during the permit's life without a major modification.

Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs)

In the draft permit, benzene is considered the appropriate VOC indicator. The primary benefit of using an indicator is to reduce monitoring and unnecessary reporting while simultaneously maintaining an effective level of environmental protection. Therefore, the limits in the draft permit for BETXs constituents will remain unchanged. The maximum daily limit for benzene will remain at 40 ug/ l with a monthly reporting requirement and a monthly reporting requirement without numeric limits will remain for toluene, ethlybenzene and xylene( s)

Refined petroleum products contain numerous types of hydrocarbons. Dissolved gasoline constituents typically remain in oil/ water separator effluent at a concentration of 15 ppm. Generally the higher the solubility of a gasoline constituent in water, the more difficult it is to remove. Three gasoline compounds with the highest solubilities are napthalene, propylene, and benzene. Propylene and napthalene, however are minor constituents of gasoline. Benzene has been selected as the main pollutant of concern in light distillates, such as gasoline, since it existed in light distillates in significant concentrations.

A traditional approach to limiting effluents contaminated with gasoline and other light distillates has been to limit the aggregate parameter of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes commonly referred to as BETXs. This approach stems from the petroleum industry practice of determining the quality of fuels by measuring BETX's, which can be highly variable among gasoline products. Another reason for limiting BETX's is that EPA and the State have promulgated water quality criteria for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and the xylenes. Of the four, benzene is by far the most soluble in water. In addition benzene has the most stringent water quality criteria for human health. Because of its relatively high solubility in water, benzene can be considered as the " limiting pollutant parameter". Storm water effluent can be adequately characterized with respect to concentrations of light distillates by knowing the concentration of benzene only.

Tank Bottom Water The bottom of many petroleum product storage tanks may contain a layer of water that has separated from the stored petroleum product due to the density difference between that product and water. As this water coalesces then settles to the bottom of the tank, it partitions ( dissolves) BETX and PAHs from the petroleum product. Through this process, the water selectively extracts these hazardous substances and becomes toxic. Because water occupies valuable space in storage tanks, facility operators drain this water layer to increase product storage capacity and to prevent transfer with the finished product.

To protect the environment from these water drawoffs, the draft permit has been conditioned to prevent Exxon from discharging any untreated or treated tank bottom drawoff water alone or in combination with other wastewater until Exxon demonstrates that the acute toxicity of the proposed tank bottom drawoff water discharge alone meets a WET LC50 limitation of equal to 100 percent effluent as well as all chemical and physical effluent limitations applicable to Outfall 001. Toxicity testing may determine that these bottom drawoff waters should be processed by Granular Activated Charcoal ( GAC), an aeration column or similar equipment to remove BETX and/ or PAHs prior to discharge to satisfy this WET requirement.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests An acute whole effluent toxicity test is also being imposed on the discharge using Mysidopsis shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia. Since the identification and quantification of all the toxic materials which might be present in the discharge is not possible and because the summation of the toxic effects of each of these chemicals would be difficult, the discharge impact upon a sensitive aquatic organism is being used to help assess the total potential impact upon the aquatic community. The objective of this test is to determine the concentration of the discharge that will cause death to 50% of the test organisms after exposure of 48 hours. This requirement has been reduced from three times per year to twice a year based on the results of the facilities past toxicity test.

These tests will be performed in accordance with Part I. A. and Attachment A of the permit.

The use of a single sample for both chemical analysis and biological testing provides direct comparison of the data. This comparison will also indicate if chemicals not identified as BETX or PAHs are sources of toxicity. During wet weather ( rainstorm events), the o/ w separator ( Discharge 001) will have two ( 2) acute biological toxicity test( s) during each year of the permit duration.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan The storm water pollution prevention plan requirements in the draft permit are intended to facilitate a process whereby the permittee thoroughly evaluates potential pollution sources at the terminal and selects and implements appropriate measures to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants into storm water run off.

The process involves the following four steps: ( 1) formation of a team of qualified facility personnel who will be responsible preparing the SWPPP and assisting the terminal manger in its implementation; ( 2) assessment of potential storm water pollution sources; ( 3) selection and implementation of appropriate management practices and controls; ( 4) periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan to prevent storm water contamination and comply with the terms and conditions of the draft permit.

To minimize preparation time of the SWPP, the permittee may, for example, reflect requirements for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC) plans, Section 311 of the CWA and 40 CFR Part 112. The permittee may incorporate any part of such plan into the SWPPP by reference provided these references address specific pollution prevention requirements, and the goal of the SWPPP.

Although relevant portions of other environmental plans, as appropriate, can be built into the SWPPP, it is important to note that the SWPPP must be a comprehensive stand alone document.

The draft permit requires the permittee to develop and implement a SWPPP no later than 90 days after the permit's effective date. The SWPPP, when implemented becomes a supporting document to any numerical effluent limitation by minimizing the discharge of pollutants through the proper operation of the facility. Consequently, the SWPPP is as equally enforcable as numerical limits on the storm water discharge.

Best Management Practices Pursuant to Section 304( a) of the Act and 40 CFR 125.103( b), Best Management Practices may be expressly incorporated into a permit on a case by case basis where determined to carry out the provision of the CWA under Section 402 ( a) ( 1). These conditions apply to Exxon because the company stores and handles pollutants listed as toxic under Section 307( a) ( 1) of the Clean Water Act or pollutants listed as hazardous under Section 311 of the Act and have ancillary operations which could result in significant amounts of these pollutants reaching waters of the United States. These operations include material storage, plant site runoff, in plant transfer, process and material handling, and loading and unloading operations.

In essence, the BMP requirement directs the permittee to totally review the physical equipment, the operational procedures, and the operator training for the Exxon terminal. The objective of this review is to protect the local waterway by minimizing the potential of chemicals being discharged through facility design, through human error, or through equipment malfunction. In issuing such a condition to Exxon, consideration of the potential for the adverse impact on public health through recreational use of the river and contaminated fish consumption were the dominant factors. In concert with the EPA requirements, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has also addressed the BMP plan in their regulations at 314 CMR 3.02( 2).

The BMP plan becomes an enforceable element of the permit upon the BMP plan's submittal to EPA and the State 90 days after the effective date of the permit. The BMP plan, therefore, becomes a supporting element to the numerical effluent limitations by minimizing the discharge of any pollutants through the proper operation of the facility. Consequently, the BMP plan is as equally enforceable as the numerical limits on the discharges.

Additional Requirements and Conditions The effluent monitoring requirements have been established to yield data representative of the discharge under authority of Section 308 ( a) of the CWA. Monitoring of effluent shall encompass both wet and dry weather discharges.

The remaining conditions of the permit are based on the NPDES regulations, Parts 122 through 125 and consist primarily of management requirements common to all permits.

V. Essential Fish Habitat Under the 1996 Amendments ( PL 104 267) to Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( 16 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. ( 1998)), EPA is required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) if EPA's action or proposed action that it funds, permits, or undertakes, " may adversely impact any essential fish habitat": " waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, 16 U. S. C. § 1802( 10). Adverse impact means any impact which reduces the quality and/ or quantity of EFH. 50 C. F. R. § 600.910( a). Adverse effects may include direct ( e. g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect ( e. g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site specific or habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. Id.

Essential fish habitat is only designated for fish species for which Federal Fish Management Plans exist. 16 U. S. C. § 1855( b)( 1)( A). EFH designations for New England were approved by the U. S. Department of Commerce on March 3, 1999.

A review of the relevant essential fish habitat information provided by NMFS indicates that essential fish habitat has been designated for 22 managed species within boundaries of Area 29, which encompasses the discharge site. Although EFH has been designated for this general location, EPA has concluded that this activity is not likely to adversely affect EFH or its associated species because, the permit requires effluent limitations based on state water quality standards, and the authorized discharge will not increase with the issuance of this permit.

EPA has determined that a formal EFH consultation with NMFS is not required, because the proposed discharge will not adversely impact EFH. If adverse impacts are detected as a result of this permit action, NMFS will be notified and an EFH consultation will be promptly initiated.

VI. State Certification Requirements EPA may not issue a permit unless the state water pollution control agency with jurisdiction over the receiving waters certifies that the effluent limitations contained in the permit are stringent enough to assure that the discharge will not cause the receiving water to violate State Water Quality Standards. The staff of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the draft permit and advised EPA that the limitations are adequate to protect water quality. EPA has requested permit certification by the State and expects that the draft permit will be certified.

VII. Comment Period, Hearing Requests, and Procedures for Final Decisions All persons, including applicants, who believe any condition of the draft permit is inappropriate must raise all issues and submit all available arguments and all supporting material for their arguments in full by the close of the public comment period, to the U. S. EPA, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02113 2023. Any person, prior to such date, may submit a request in writing for a public hearing to consider the draft permit to EPA and the State Agency. Such requests shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. A public hearing may be held after at least thirty days public notice, whenever the Regional Administrator finds that response to this notice indicates significant public interest. In reaching a final decision on the draft permit the Regional Administrator will respond to all significant comments and make these responses available to the public at EPA's Boston Office.

Following the close of the comment period, and after a public hearing, if such hearing is held, the Regional Administrator will issue a final permit decision and forward a copy of the final decision to the applicant and each person who has submitted written comments or requested notice. Within 30 days following the notice of the final permit decision any interested person may submit a request for a formal hearing to reconsider or contest the final decision. Requests for formal hearings must satisfy the requirements of 40 C. F. R. § 124.74, 45 Fed. Reg. 14279 14280 ( April 1, 1983).

VIII. EPA Contact Additional information concerning the draft permit may be obtained between the hours of 8: 00 a. m. and 4: 00 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays from:

Betsy Davis 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 ( CMA) Boston, Massachusetts 02114 2023 ( 617) 918 1576 January 25, 2000 Linda M. Murphy Date Office of Ecosystems Protection U. S. Environmental Protection Agency


[Federal Register: August 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 44603-44605]
[DOCID:fr08au07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56178; File No. SR-OC-2007-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Block
Trade and EFP Transaction Reporting Procedures

August 1, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-7 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 20, 2007, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons. The Exchange has
also filed the proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC''), together with a written certification under
Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''),\3\ on July 19,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OneChicago is proposing to amend its policies and procedures
relating to the reporting of block trades and Exchange of Futures for
Physical (``EFP'') transactions. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on OneChicago's Web site (http://onechicago.com), at

OneChicago's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    The Exchange has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and
basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and
comments received from its members, participants, and others. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    OneChicago proposes to amend its Block Trade Reporting Procedures
(``Block Reporting Procedures'') and its EFP Transactions: Guidelines
and Reporting Procedures (``EFP Reporting Procedures'') to permit
reporting of block trades and EFP transactions through the OneChicago
Block & EFP Trading System (``OneChicago BETS''). In addition,
OneChicago proposes to make conforming changes to OneChicago Policies:
Block Trades, Pre-Execution Discussions and Cross Trades (``Block Trade
Policy'').
    OneChicago BETS permits authorized traders to trade and report
block trades, as well as match and report EFP transactions
electronically.\4\ The proposed rule change would add language to the
Block Reporting Procedures that would permit those

authorized to report block trades to do so through OneChicago BETS,
telephonically as permitted by the Exchange, or in a form and method
approved by OneChicago. In addition, the proposed rule change would
amend the provision of the Block Reporting Procedures that requires the
selling firm to call the OneChicago Operations Management (``OOM'')
Help Desk for block trades reported telephonically by allowing the
counterparty to agree to a different reporting arrangement. A similar
change to the Block Reporting Procedures is proposed for the reporting
of blocks that are spreads or combinations. The proposed rule change
would also amend the footnote to the Block Reporting Procedures to
delete ``500,'' currently the stated minimum contract size, and add a
cross-reference to the minimum contract size specified in the Block
Trade Policy. Under the proposed rule change, the total quantity of the
legs of a spread or combination must continue to meet the minimum
contract size requirement as stated in the Block Trade Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OneChicago BETS also permits electronic trading and
reporting of Block Roll trades, a block trade where a trader enters
into a calendar spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the EFP Reporting Procedures would add language
to make it clear that entering into an EFP via OneChicago BETS would
fulfill the requirement to complete an EFP Transaction Report in a form
and manner approved by the Exchange. Under the proposed rule change, if
a transaction is matched by OneChicago BETS, then the party that traded
against the resting bid or offer (the ``Aggressor'') would be obligated
to enter the base price into OneChicago BETS from which a futures price
would be generated by adding the matched differential.\5\ If the
transaction is an EFP that is only reported on OneChicago BETS (i.e., a
Bi-lateral transaction), then either party to the transaction may enter
the information into OneChicago BETS, and the counter-party trader must
confirm the transaction on OneChicago BETS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EFPs on BETS are quoted in spreads. The futures price is
calculated by adding the quoted spread to the base price negotiated
by the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also eliminate the requirement in
the EFP Reporting Procedures that the parties to the transaction
exchange their respective Trade Reporter IDs and agree upon a unique
trade ID to be used when recording the terms of their trade. Since the
Exchange has the Trade Reporter IDs and provides a unique trade ID for
each trade, it is no longer necessary to have the Trade Reporters
exchange and create such IDs. Conforming language was also added to
clarify that the OOM Help Desk will only compare the details on trades
that are not reported through OneChicago BETS.
    Conforming changes are also proposed for the Block Trade Policy.
Thus, under the proposal, the buyer of a block trade could agree that
the seller is not obligated to report a block trade; language requiring
the OOM Help Desk to provide a trade identification and requiring
traders to provide the OOM Help Desk trade identification when
reporting a block trade would be deleted; and new language would be
added to make clear that OOM Help Desk would only report block trades
reported to them telephonically to the OneChicago trade engine.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general and section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change would permit electronic
reporting of block trades and EFP transactions, which would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the
public interest by providing more efficient reporting of block trades
and EFPs and by providing a strong audit trail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(7)(B) of the Act,\8\ the proposed rule
change became effective on July 20, 2007. Within 60 days of the date of
effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after
consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change and require that the proposed rule change be re-filed in
accordance with the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)(B).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-OC-2007-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2007-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-OC-2007-03 and should be submitted on or
before August 29, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon.
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15384 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63173]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19853]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-381, OMB Control No. 3235-0434]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 15g-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 15g-2 (17 CFR 240.15g-2) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 15g-2 (The ``Penny Stock Disclosure Rule'') requires broker-
dealers to provide their customers with a risk disclosure document, as
set forth in Schedule 15G, prior to their first non-exempt transaction
in a ``penny stock.'' As amended, the rule requires broker-dealers to
obtain written acknowledgement from the customer that he or she has
received the required risk disclosure document. The amended rule also
requires broker-dealers to maintain a copy of the customer's written
acknowledgement for at least three years following the date on which
the risk disclosure document was provided to the customer, the first
two years in an accessible place. Rule 15g-2 also requires a broker-
dealer, upon request of a customer, to furnish the customer with a copy
of certain information set forth on the Commission's website.
    The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers,
to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in ``penny
stocks'' before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure
documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed
during the course of an examination by the Commission.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 175 broker-dealers are
engaged in penny stock transactions and that each of these firms
processes an average of three new customers for penny stocks per week.
The Commission further estimates that half of the broker-dealers send
the penny stock disclosure documents by mail, and the other half send
them through electronic means such as email. Because the Commission
estimates the copying and mailing of the penny stock disclosure
document takes two minutes, this means that there is an annual burden
of 27,456 minutes, or 457 hours, for this third-party disclosure burden
of mailing documents. Additionally, because the Commission estimates
that sending the penny stock disclosure document electronically takes
one minute, the annual burden is 13,728 minutes, or 229 hours, for this
third-party disclosure burden of emailing documents.
    Broker-dealers also incur a recordkeeping burden of approximately
two minutes per response when filing the completed penny stock
disclosure documents as required pursuant to the Rule 15g-2(c), which
means that the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping burden of
54,600 minutes, or 910 hours.
    Furthermore, Rule 15g-2(d) requires a broker-dealer, upon request
of a customer, to furnish the customer with a copy of certain
information set forth on the Commission's website, which takes a
respondent no more than two minutes per customer. Because the
Commission estimates that a quarter of customers who are required to
receive the Rule 15g-2 disclosure document will request that their
broker-dealer provide them with the additional microcap and penny stock
information posted on the Commission's website, the Commission
therefore estimates that each broker-dealer respondent processes
approximately 39 requests for paper copies of this information per year
or an aggregate total of 78 minutes per respondent, which amounts to an
annual burden of 13,650 minutes, or 228 hours. There was an overall
decrease in the total burden hours because the number of registered
broker-dealers the Commission estimates will be engaged in penny stock
transactions decreased from 182 to 175.
    The Commission does not maintain the risk disclosure document.
Instead, it must be retained by the broker-dealer for at least three
years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was
provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place.
The collection of information required by the rule is mandatory. The
risk disclosure document is otherwise governed by the internal policies
of the broker-dealer regarding confidentiality, etc.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
November 13, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: September 8, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19853 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P