[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60735-60738]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24457]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67948; File Nos. SR-NYSEArca-2012-64; SR-ISE-2012-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; International
Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1 and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Changes as
Modified by Amendments No. 1 To List and Trade Option Contracts
Overlying 10 Shares of Certain Securities

September 28, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 15, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and on June 20,
2012, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE,'' and together
with NYSE Arca, ``Exchanges''), 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\ proposed rule changes to list and trade option contracts
overlying 10 shares of certain securities (``mini options''). The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 3, 2012.\3\ The Commission initially received two
comment letters on the proposals.\4\ On August 9, 2012, the Commission
extended the time period for Commission action on both proposals to
October 1, 2012.\5\ On September 20, 2012, NYSE Arca filed Amendment
No. 1 to its proposed rule change. Also, on September 20, 2012, ISE
submitted a response letter \6\ and filed Amendment No. 1 to its
proposed rule change.\7\ On September 24, 2012, NYSE Arca submitted a
response letter.\8\ The Commission subsequently received one additional
comment letter \9\ and one additional response letter from each of the
Exchanges.\10\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the Exchanges' proposals, as modified by Amendments No. 1,
from interested persons and is approving the Exchanges' proposals, as
modified by Amendments No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67283 (June 27,
2012), 77 FR 39535 (``NYSE Arca Notice'') and 67284 (June 27, 2012),
77 FR 39545 (``ISE Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading LLC, dated July 10,
2012 (``KOR Trading Letter'') and Edward T. Tilly, President and
Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, dated July 24, 2012 (``CBOE Letter'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67631, 77 FR 49044
(August 15, 2012) and 67632, 77 FR 49044 (August 15, 2012).
    \6\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General Counsel, ISE, dated
September 20, 2012 (``ISE Response Letter I'').
    \7\ In its Amendment No. 1, each Exchange represents that its
current schedule of fees will not apply to the trading of mini
options contracts. Further, each Exchange represents that it will
not commence trading in mini options until it files with the
Commission, as a proposed rule change, specific fees for mini
options.
    \8\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, EVP & Corporate Secretary, General Counsel,
NYSE Markets, NYSE Euronext, dated September 24, 2012 (``NYSE Arca
Response Letter I'').
    \9\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Anthony D. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer, BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), dated September 24, 2012 (``BOX Letter'').
    \10\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, EVP & Corporate Secretary, General Counsel,
NYSE Markets, NYSE Euronext, dated September 26, 2012 (``NYSE Arca
Response Letter II'') and Katherine Simmons, Deputy General Counsel,
ISE, dated September 26, 2012 (``ISE Response Letter II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Exchanges propose to list and trade mini options \11\ on
certain underlying securities--SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY''), Apple Inc.
(``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''), Google Inc. (``GOOG''), and
Amazon.com, Inc. (``AMZN'').\12\ According to the Exchanges, these
underlying securities were selected because they are currently trading
at prices greater than $100 and are actively traded.\13\ The Exchanges
also note that the standard option contracts overlying these five
securities are among the most actively traded, with average daily
volume over the previous three calendar months of at least 45,000
contracts, excluding LEAPS and FLEX series.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Mini options contracts would represent a deliverable of 10
shares of an underlying security, whereas standard contracts
represent a deliverable of 100 shares.
    \12\ The Exchanges note that any expansion of the mini options
program would require that a subsequent proposed rule change be
submitted to the Commission. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
n.3 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at n.3.
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
    \14\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to designate mini options contracts with
different trading symbols than their corresponding standard
contracts.\15\ In addition, the Exchanges propose that strike prices
for mini options would be set at the same level as full-sized
options.\16\ Bids and offers for mini options would be expressed in
terms of dollars per 1/10th part of the total value of the options
contract.\17\ As expressed in the Exchanges' proposals, the table below
demonstrates the proposed differences between a mini options contract
and a standard contract with a strike price of $125 per share and a bid
or offer of $3.20 per share:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. According to the Exchanges, the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') symbology is structured for
contracts that have a deliverable of other than 100 shares to be
designated with a numeric added to the standard trading symbol. See
NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.6 and ISE Notice, supra note 3,
at 39546. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at
1.
    \16\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(b) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(b).
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.71(c) and ISE Rule 709(c).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Standard                Mini
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares Deliverable Upon       100 shares..........  10 shares.
 Exercise.
Strike Price................  125.................  125.
Bid/Offer...................  3.20................  3.20.
Premium Multiplier..........  $100................  $10.
Total Value of Deliverable..  $12,500.............  $1,250.
Total Value of Contract.....  $320................  $32.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchanges propose not to permit the listing of
additional mini options series if the underlying security is trading at
$90 or less and to require that the underlying security trade above $90
for five consecutive days before the listing of mini options in an
additional expiration month.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(c) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(c). In addition, the Exchanges propose
that, for purposes of determining compliance with position limits,
ten mini options contracts would equal one standard contract. See
NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, Commentary .08 and ISE Rule 412, Supplementary
Material .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in their proposals, each of the Exchanges states that
it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options
Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle
the potential additional traffic associated with the listing and
trading of mini options contracts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. Each of the Exchanges also states
that it has discussed the proposed listing and trading of mini
options with the OCC, and the OCC has represented that it is able to
accommodate mini options. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
39536 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes filed by NYSE
Arca and ISE are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\20\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving these proposed rule changes, the Commission
has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the listing and trading of mini
options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN could benefit investors by
providing them with additional investment alternatives. The Commission
believes, as noted in the proposals and the KOR Trading Letter, the
listing and trading of mini options would make options overlying high-
priced securities more readily available to investors, thereby
providing investors with a tool to manage risk in high-priced
securities.\22\ In particular, the Exchanges state that mini options
would be more affordable for investors.\23\ In addition, in its comment
letter, KOR Trading states that certain stocks are priced too high for
the average investor to purchase a round lot and investors are
increasingly using odd lots.\24\ It further states that mini options
would allow investors who purchase odd lots to hedge their positions
and that mini options would benefit investors significantly,
particularly small investors.\25\ BOX also states that options
contracts on certain high-priced underlying securities are priced out
of reach for the majority of retail investors.\26\ As such, BOX
expresses support for the creation of mini options that are one-tenth
the size of the current standard-sized options.\27\ In addition, CBOE
expresses support for the objective of providing investors with access
to exchange-traded options overlying high-priced securities that are
smaller in size and, therefore, more readily available as an investing
tool than standard-sized options.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536; ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at 39546; and KOR Trading Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
    \23\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
    \24\ See KOR Trading Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
    \25\ See id. See also NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536
and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
    \26\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 1.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See CBOE Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment letter, CBOE raises a price protection issue with
respect to the proposals. Specifically, CBOE states that, in connection
with its prior proposal to list and trade both full-value and reduced-
value options on the CBOE S&P 500 BuyWrite Index (``BXM''), Commission
staff had expressed the concern that having two sizes of options on the
same underlying interest created a potential for price protection
issues because of the possibility that trades in the reduced-sized
options might occur at a price inferior to the price available in the
full-sized options, or vice versa.\29\ In addition to CBOE, BOX
suggests in its comment letter that the Exchanges did not discuss in
sufficient detail the issue of either the mini options or the standard
options on the same underlying security potentially ``trading through''
the market of the other.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id., at 2. CBOE also states its belief that the
Commission staff had similar concerns with respect to a proposal by
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange to trade options on exchange-traded
funds (``ETFs'') and trust issued receipts with a unit of trading of
1,000 shares and NYSE Amex's proposal to trade options on certain
ETFs with a unit of trading of 1,000 shares alongside standard-sized
options on the same underlying ETFs. See id., at 2-3.
    \30\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 1. BOX states that all
reasonable measures should be required to ensure that users of
either contract size receive the best price possible based on a
measure of the price per underlying share. See id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that price protection would not apply across
standard and mini options contracts on an intramarket basis, as these
are separate products. The Commission recognizes that trading different
options products that overlie the same security or index could disperse
trading interest across the products to some extent. In illiquid or
nascent markets, increased dispersion across products may cause
particular concern, as the markets for the separate products may lack
the critical mass of buyers and sellers to allow such a market to
become established or, once established, to thrive.
    In the case of markets for options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and
AMZN, there generally exists a critical mass of willing buyers and
sellers both for the options and for the underlying securities that
mitigate such concerns. The Exchanges propose to limit the listing and
trading of mini options to those five underlying securities because
they are high-priced and highly liquid securities, and the standard
option contracts overlying these securities are among the most
actively-traded options.\31\ Specifically, the Exchanges note in their
proposals that SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN were selected

because these securities are priced greater than $100 and are actively
traded securities, and that the standard option contract exhibits
average daily volume over the previous three calendar months of at
least 45,000 contracts, excluding LEAPS and FLEX series.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39535 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39545. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter
II, supra note 10, at 2.
    \32\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra
note 10, at 2. Further, as proposed by both Exchanges, no additional
mini options series may be added if the underlying security is
trading at $90 or less, and the underlying security must trade above
$90 for five consecutive days prior to listing mini options in an
additional expiration month. See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary
.14(c) and ISE Rule 504, Supplementary Material .12(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchanges in their response letters distinguish the
current mini options proposals from the CBOE proposal to trade BXM
options.\33\ The Exchanges state that while the BXM options proposal
would have listed two new options products on the same index prior to
the development of an active liquid market, thus raising potential
concerns regarding creating a bifurcated market without adequate
liquidity in either market, the current proposals restrict the
eligibility of mini options to options that overlie a limited group of
highly liquid and high-priced ETFs and equities.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1.
    \34\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment letter, BOX questions whether arbitrage would ensure
that markets for the mini options and standard options would remain
within a minimal spread away from the price of the underlying equity
share.\35\ BOX states that ensuring that the market prices stay in line
is not possible until the issue of cross-margin is addressed.\36\
Further, BOX states that arbitrage will only occur where the spread
between a transaction in the mini option and a transaction in the
standard option is such that a profit can be achieved.\37\ BOX states
that, absent any determination of the trading fees for mini options as
compared to standard options, one cannot make any conclusions about
potential arbitrage between the two markets.\38\ Also, BOX suggests
that one cannot presume that such arbitrage will be sufficient to
maintain efficient pricing between the two markets.\39\ In their second
response letters, the Exchanges note that the OCC would allow mini
options and standard options on the same underlying security to be
cross-margined.\40\ In addition, each of the Exchanges states that its
current fee schedule will not apply to transactions in mini options,
and that it will not start trading mini options until it has filed a
proposed rule change with the Commission on specific fees for mini
options.\41\ Accordingly, the Exchanges believe that the availability
of mini options contracts is likely to result in more efficient pricing
through arbitrage with standard contracts.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 2.
    \36\ See id. BOX states that market participants should have the
ability for full cross-margining at the OCC between mini options and
standard options overlying the same security. See id., at 1. In
addition, BOX states that the proposals should make clear that
market participants are responsible for delivering the same
underlying security for mini options contracts as for standard
contracts. See id. In their second response letters, the Exchanges
clarify that mini options and the corresponding standard options
would overlie the same underlying security. See NYSE Arca Response
Letter II, supra note 10, at 1 (stating its understanding that OCC
instructions upon assignment will be to deliver the same underlying
security to the National Securities Clearing Corporation, regardless
of whether it is a mini option contract or a standard contract) and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1.
    \37\ See BOX Letter, supra note 9, at 2.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1-2 and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 1-2.
    \41\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2 and
ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
    \42\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 1; ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 1-2; and NYSE Arca Response
Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has carefully considered the price protection issue
raised with respect to the current proposals. As discussed above, the
current proposals would apply only to options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG,
and AMZN, which, along with the underlying securities, are highly
liquid and have well-established trading histories. The Commission
believes that the high trading volume and liquidity in the markets for
the five underlying securities and the standard-sized options overlying
them would mitigate the price protection concern that commenters
noted.\43\ To expand the trading of mini options beyond options on
these five underlying securities, the Exchanges would be required to
file new proposed rule changes with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Act and the Commission would, at that time, assess any
market impact of such an expansion.\44\ In addition, the Commission
notes that NYSE Arca and ISE each represented in its Amendment No. 1
that its current fee schedule will not apply to transactions in mini
options, and that it will not start trading mini options until it has
filed a proposed rule change with the Commission on specific fees for
mini options.\45\ However, the Commission expects the Exchanges to
monitor the trading of the products to evaluate whether any issues
develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Commission has previously approved options products in
standard and reduced values that overlie the same index (e.g., SPX
and XSP). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32893 (September
14, 1993), 58 FR 49070 (September 21, 1993) (SR-CBOE-93-12) (order
approving proposed rule change relating to the listing of reduced-
value options on the S&P 500 Index). See also NYSE Arca Response
Letter I, supra note 8, at 2 (referencing the full and mini S&P 500
Index options, the full and mini Nasdaq 100 Index options, and the
full and jumbo Dow Jones Industrial Average options).
    \44\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at n.3 and ISE Notice,
supra note 3, at n.3.
    \45\ See supra note 7. See also NYSE Arca Response Letter II,
supra note 10, at 2 and ISE Response Letter II, supra note 10, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE also states in its comment letter that the Exchanges have
adopted rules pursuant to which they may list standard-sized options
with non-standard expiration dates (e.g., weekly series, quarterly
series, and LEAPS).\46\ CBOE states that because these types of
programs have been adopted by other exchanges as well, it is important
to know whether mini options with non-traditional expiration dates
would be permitted under the proposals.\47\ CBOE also states that, if
for example, the proposals would permit weekly mini options, the
Commission should consider the impact that the potential doubling of
the number of weekly exchange-traded options on the underlying
securities might have on the options trading industry.\48\ In response,
the Exchanges clarify that mini options with non-standard expiration
dates would be permitted under their proposals and in accordance with
their existing rules.\49\ Specifically, as proposed, the Exchanges may
list mini options on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG, and AMZN for all expirations
applicable to 100-share options in each class.\50\ The Exchanges also
represent that they and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of mini options.\51\ In light
of the Exchanges' representations, the

Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act to allow the
listing of the proposed mini options for all expirations applicable to
full-sized options in each class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See CBOE Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See id.
    \49\ See NYSE Arca Response Letter I, supra note 8, at 2 and ISE
Response Letter I, supra note 6, at 2.
    \50\ See NYSE Arca Rules 6.3, Commentary .01 and 6.4, Commentary
.14(a) and ISE Rule 504, Supplementary Material .12(a).
    \51\ See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at 39536 and ISE
Notice, supra note 3, at 39546. The Exchanges also represent that
they have discussed the proposed listing and trading of mini options
with the OCC, and the OCC has represented that it is able to
accommodate the proposals. See NYSE Arca Notice, supra note 3, at
39536 and ISE Notice, supra note 3, at 39546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that other aspects of the proposals are
also consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Commission believes
that, because each mini option would represent a deliverable of 10
shares of an underlying security, as opposed to 100 shares (i.e., the
deliverable for a standard-sized option is ten times the deliverable of
a mini option), the proposed position limit rules for mini options,
which state that ten mini options contracts shall equal one standard
contract, are appropriate and consistent with the Act.\52\ Further, the
Commission believes that the proposed use of different trading symbols
for mini options is consistent with the Act because it should help
investors and other market participants distinguish mini options from
the corresponding standard options.\53\ In addition, the Commission
believes that the proposed treatment of strike prices \54\ and bids and
offers \55\ for mini options is consistent with the Act, as these
amendments should make clear how mini options would be quoted and
traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, Commentary .08 and ISE Rule 412,
Supplementary Material .03. The Commission notes that, according to
ISE Rule 412, Supplementary Material .03, positions in mini options
are aggregated with positions in regular-sized options overlying the
same security. Further, according to NYSE Arca Rule 6.8, in
determining compliance with relevant position limits, NYSE Arca
considers: (1) An aggregate long position in any class of options;
(2) an aggregate short position in any class of options; (3) an
aggregate position on the same side of the market in the same
underlying stock, which position shall be ascertained by combining
long call options with short put options and short call options with
long put options; or (4) an aggregate uncovered short position in
any class of options.
    \53\ See supra note 15 and accompanying text.
    \54\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.4, Commentary .14(b) and ISE Rule 504,
Supplementary Material .12(b).
    \55\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.71(c) and ISE Rule 709(c). The
Commission also believes that NYSE Arca's proposal to delete
references to ``Exchange-Traded Fund Share'' in NYSE Arca Rule 6.71
is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As national securities exchanges, each of the Exchanges is
required, under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\56\ to enforce compliance
by its members and persons associated with its members with the
provisions of the Act, Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and
its own rules. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Exchanges'
rules that apply to the trading of standard options would apply to mini
options. The Commission also notes that the Exchanges' existing market
maker quoting obligations would apply to mini options.\57\ In addition,
the Commission notes that intermarket trade-through protection would
apply to mini options to the extent that they are traded on more than
one market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \57\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B and ISE Rule 804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission finds
good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\58\ for approving
the Exchanges' proposals, as modified by Amendments No. 1, prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of the notices in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are 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 Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and SR-ISE-2012-58 on the subject
line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and
SR-ISE-2012-58. These file numbers 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 submissions, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchanges. 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 Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and SR-ISE-2012-58 and
should be submitted on or before October 25, 2012.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\59\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSEArca-2012-64; SR-ISE-
2012-58), as modified by Amendments No. 1, be, and hereby are, approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24457 Filed 10-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71862-71866]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0321; FRL-10003-74-Region 9]

Air Plan Conditional Approval and Disapproval; Arizona; Maricopa
County; Power Plants, Fuel Burning Equipment, and Internal Combustion
Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve two revisions to the Maricopa County portion of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning fuel-burning
equipment and internal combustion engines. The EPA is also proposing to
disapprove one revision to the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona
SIP concerning power plants. We are proposing action on Maricopa County
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the ``Act''). We are taking comments on these proposals and plan to
follow with final actions.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0321 at http://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    On June 22, 2017, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ, or the ``State'') electronically submitted a SIP revision from
the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD, or the ``County'')
revising several rules. Table 1 lists the rules on which the EPA is
proposing action, with the dates they were revised by the MCAQD, the
dates they were submitted by the ADEQ, and the type of action that the
EPA is proposing in this notice.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rule No.              Rule title              Revised               Submitted           Proposed  action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
322.................  Power Plant            November 2, 2016.....  June 22, 2017........  Disapproval.
                       Operations.
323.................  Fuel Burning           November 2, 2016.....  June 22, 2017........  Conditional
                       Equipment from                                                      Approval.
                       Industrial/
                       Commercial/
                       Institutional (ICI)
                       Sources.
324.................  Stationary             November 2, 2016.....  June 22, 2017........  Conditional
                       Reciprocating                                                       Approval.
                       Internal Combustion
                       Engines (RICE).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2017, the submittal containing the rules listed in
Table 1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved earlier versions of the rules listed in Table 1 into
the SIP on October 14, 2009 (74 FR 52693, 40 CFR 52.120, paragraph (c),
Table 4--EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations). The ADEQ previously submitted these rules in a SIP
revision on December 19, 2016, along with the County's reasonably
available control technology (RACT) demonstration. However, this
submittal did not include documentation that showed the entirety of the
County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements required
for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The County addressed
the public notice requirement and the State resubmitted the submittal
on June 22, 2017, and withdrew the December 19, 2016 submittal on May
17, 2019.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) helps produce ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control NOX emissions. The rules in Table 1
were submitted to control NOX emissions from power plants,
process heaters, boilers, stationary turbines, and internal combustion
engines. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each major source of
NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or
above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). Maricopa County
regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area, which
is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
81.303). Maricopa County's ``Analysis of Reasonably Available Control
Technology For The 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),'' adopted
December 5, 2016, submitted June 22, 2017 (the ``2016 RACT SIP''),
identified all of the major sources of NOX within the
County's portion of the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area, and concluded
that there were major sources within the Maricopa County portion of the
Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area subject to each of these rules.
Accordingly, all three of the submitted rules must establish RACT
levels of control for these major sources.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' EPA 453/R-93-007, January
1993.
    4. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers,'' EPA
453/R-94-022, March 1994.
    5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,''
EPA 453/R-93-032, July 1993.
    6. ``De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,'' Memorandum from
G. T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. EPA,
January 1, 1995.
    7. ``Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT),'' Memorandum from D. Ken Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, US. EPA, March 16,
1994.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rules 322, 323 and 324 apply to various emission sources that are
major sources of NOX in the Phoenix-Mesa area. We find that
the County's submissions are largely consistent with the applicable CAA
requirements, with the exceptions identified below. In a letter dated
January 28, 2019 (the ``commitment letter''), the County enumerated
certain rule deficiencies and committed to revise those provisions in
accordance with EPA guidance, and submit the revised rules within
eleven months of a conditional approval.\1\ On February 25, 2019, the
ADEQ provided its own commitment to submit the County's revised rules
to the EPA within one month after the County's action and request for
SIP revision.\2\ On December 5, 2019, the County provided a supplement
to the commitment letter to resolve further deficiencies in the
submitted rules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, Maricopa County Air Control Quality Department, to Misael
Cabrera, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    \2\ Letter dated February 25, 2019, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region
IX.
    \3\ Letter dated December 5, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, Maricopa County Air Control Quality Department, to Doris
Lo, Manager, Rules Office, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA
Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to disapprove Rule 322 because it includes
provisions that do not meet our evaluation criteria, and the
deficiencies in the rule as submitted may cause a weakening from the
current SIP-approved rule. These issues are summarized below and
discussed further in our TSD evaluating Rule 322.
    The EPA also proposes to conditionally approve Rules 323 and 324,
because they strengthen the SIP. The County has committed to adopt
specific enforceable measures to remedy the identified rule
deficiencies in these rules, and the State has committed to submit
those updated rules as SIP revisions. Our TSDs for Rules 323 and 324
provide further details on our evaluation for these conditional
approvals.

C. What are the deficiencies?

1. Deficiencies in Rule 322
    Rule 322's provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section
110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the
SIP revision for the following reasons.
    a. Rule 322 contains provisions that constitute unacceptable and
unenforceable director's discretion. Specifically, the rule provides
for the County's Air Pollution Control Officer to approve as RACT
alternative control strategies that differ from the rule's existing
emission limits or requirements without further approval from the EPA.
This director's discretion conflicts with long-standing EPA policy.
Although the County has committed to revise this provision, the EPA
cannot conditionally

approve Rule 322 because these alternative control strategies may
constitute a weakening of the SIP-approved rule.
    b. Rule 322's NOX emission limits are not demonstrated
to meet RACT for steam generating units that are applicable to this
rule. The County must revise the limits for these units or provide
sufficient justification as to why these limits constitute RACT for
these emission sources.
    c. Two provisions in Rule 322 exempt units from specific
requirements when firing on emergency fuel. These exemptions are overly
broad. First, unlike in other jurisdictions, the rule does not limit
the duration in which emergency fuel can be used. Rule 322 must specify
a maximum length of time that emergency fuel can be used per year.
Second, the rule exempts units from all emission limits while testing
operations for using emergency fuel. As written, the language could be
interpreted to mean that any unit that test fires on emergency fuel
would be exempt from all emission limits all of the time. The County
must clarify that the exemption only applies during the testing period.
    d. The compliance schedule requirements for units that are
currently not complying with the limits in the rule may be extended by
the Control Officer as needed or could be extended by the County's
inaction or delay to approve a compliance schedule. The County must
include an enforceable deadline by which a facility must comply with
the rule.
    e. Rule 322 currently does not include a compliance determination
requirement, such as requiring regular stack tests or the use of
continuous emission monitoring systems. The County must include
enforceable compliance determination schedules to verify that
facilities are complying with the emission limits in the rule.
    Although the District and State provided commitment letters
addressing some of the listed deficiencies, the rule as submitted is
not SIP-strengthening because deficiency (a) above could allow for a
source to apply for an alternative control strategy that results in
weakened emission limits or controls without the EPA's concurrent
approval that this alternative is RACT. Although the existing SIP-
approved version of Rule 322 contains less stringent limits and applies
to fewer sources than the submitted version of Rule 322, this new
provision could allow any existing source to apply to the County for an
alternative RACT determination that may or may not be consistent with
the existing or new NOX limits. Therefore the submitted Rule
322 is not appropriate for a conditional approval. Our TSD for Rule 322
contains our discussion and analysis for all the deficiencies and the
County's commitments.
2. Deficiencies in Rule 323 and the County's and State's Commitments
    The provisions for Rule 323 do not satisfy the requirements of
section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval
of the SIP revision. However, the submitted rule strengthens the SIP
and the County's and State's commitment letters include specific and
enforceable commitments to address the deficiencies, which serve as the
basis for today's proposed conditional approval. Our conditional
approval of the SIP revision for Rule 323 is based on the following
deficiencies and County and State commitments:
    a. Much like deficiency (c) for Rule 322, the emergency fuel use
exemptions in the rule are overly broad. In Rule 323, the total
allowable length of emergency fuel burning must be limited and must
require that the facility owner/operator notify the County when
switching to emergency fuel. The language in the rule exempting units
firing emergency fuel for testing purposes could be interpreted to
allow for the exemption during any operating period so long as there
was a testing period. The County has committed to clarify that the
exemptions only apply during the testing period.
    b. All major sources of NOX must be subject to RACT
limits or requirements. In Rule 323, all turbines and all boilers rated
larger than 100 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) must
comply with emission limits in the rule. Boiler units rated between 10
MMBtu/hr and 100 MMBtu/hr may opt to comply with the emission limits or
tune the units annually. The burner maintenance requirements in the
rule's tuning requirements are not RACT, as many other jurisdictions
regulating units in this size category are able to achieve numeric
limits or have more stringent tuning requirements. As the rule is
written, major source units in the nonattainment area are only required
to tune the engine instead of complying with a RACT NOX
limit. The County has committed to clarify that larger units shall
comply with Rule 323 by meeting a NOX limit.
    c. Rule 323's NOX emission limits are not demonstrated
to meet RACT for non-turbine combustion equipment that are applicable
to this rule. The County has committed to revise the limits for these
units or provide sufficient justification as to why these limits
constitute RACT for these emission sources.
    d. The rule allows operators to comply with the limits in this rule
by installing an emission control system but does not include any
requirement to verify the effectiveness of that system in meeting the
emission limits. The County has committed to revise the rule to make
clear that any unit on which an emission control system is installed
must comply with the numeric RACT limit.
    e. The operations and maintenance plan requirements for emissions
control systems are only approved by the Control Officer. This
constitutes unacceptable director's discretion. The County has
committed to codify additional requirements for acceptable operations
and maintenance plans into the rule that would constrain the discretion
of the director in approving or denying these plans.
    f. The Rule specifies that boilers larger than 100 MMBtu/hr must
source test triennially but does not describe a testing frequency for
other units. Other units must be tested at least triennially. The
County has committed to require a minimum testing frequency for these
units.
    g. The rule lacks a definition for ``boiler,'' and for ``continuous
emissions monitoring system.'' The County has committed to include
these definitions in the rule.
    Our TSD for Rule 323 contains further discussion and analysis of
these deficiencies and the County's and State's commitments.
3. Deficiencies in Rule 324 and the County's and State's Commitments
    The provisions for Rule 324 also do not satisfy the requirements of
section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval
of the SIP revision. The County's and State's commitment letters
included specific and enforceable commitments to address these
deficiencies. Our proposed conditional approval of the SIP revision for
Rule 324 is based on the following deficiencies and the County's and
State's commitments to correct them:
    a. The current structure of rule applicability and emission limits
does not clearly outline a RACT limit for NOX and VOC
emissions from all applicable internal combustion (IC) engines. The
County must include control requirements or limits for engines
otherwise subject to federal requirements and standards in 40 CFR part
60, subparts IIII and JJJJ. The Clean Air Act requires that RACT
limitations be approved into the federally-

enforceable SIP. It is inappropriate to rely on requirements outside of
the SIP, such as the Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources found in 40 CFR part 60. The County has committed to include
applicable numeric limits or other requirements directly in the rule
language.
    b. The current rule only applies to engines rated greater than 250
brake horsepower (bhp), and to engines rated greater than 50 bhp or
greater when operating at a facility whose units sum to more than 250
bhp. The County should lower the applicability threshold for all
engines to 50 bhp to be in line with other jurisdictions' RACT rules.
The current rule also does not clearly state compliance requirements
for 50 bhp engines summed at a 250 bhp facility. The County has
committed to lower the applicability threshold and to clarify
requirements for those smaller engines.
    c. The current rule allows for unacceptable flexibility in the
treatment of replacement engines and emergency engines. Emergency
engines that serve as backup to replace non-emergency engines may do so
until the non-emergency engine is repaired, but this time span is
otherwise unbounded, and the emergency engines may operate above RACT
limits. Current rule provisions also allow for engines that are deemed
equivalent or identical to replace existing engines and then be treated
the same as the engine being replaced; but there are no requirements
for replacement engines to quantify emissions equivalency or
reductions. The County has committed to limit the total amount of time
that these types of emergency engines can operate, to modify the
definitions of ``emergency engine'' and ``identical replacement
engine,'' and to remove the definition for ``equivalent replacement
engine.''
    d. The current rule does not specify a compliance determination
interval for engines, other than at the Control Officer's discretion.
The County has committed to require compliance determination
performance tests every two years for non-emergency engines located at
major sources. The County has also committed to require compliance
determination requirements for certified non-emergency engines and for
non-emergency engines.
    Our TSD for Rule 324 contains further discussion and analysis of
these deficiencies and the County's and State's commitments.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs for Rules 322, 323, and 324 also describe additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the next time the County modifies the
rules that do not constitute approvability issues at this time.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing
full disapproval of the submitted MCAQD Rule 322. If the disapproval
for Rule 322 is finalized, this action would trigger the 2-year clock
for the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under CAA section
110(c)(1). Final disapproval would also trigger sanctions under CAA
section 179(a)(2) and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approves subsequent
SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of
the effective date of the final action.
    In addition, section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally
approve SIP revisions based on a commitment by the state to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one
year after the date of the plan's conditional approval. 42 U.S.C.
7410(k)(4). In this instance, the enforceable measures that the State
must submit are new or revised rules that correct the rule deficiencies
identified above for MCAQD Rules 323 and 324. As noted above, the
County transmitted letters on January 28, 2019, and December 5, 2019,
committing to adopt revisions that would address the deficiencies
identified in Rules 323 and 324. Accordingly, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Rules 323 and 324. If these proposed conditional
approvals are finalized as proposed, and the County or the State fails
to comply with these commitments for either rule, the conditional
approval for that rule would convert to a disapproval and start an 18-
month clock for sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) and a two year
clock for a FIP under CAA section 110(c)(1).
    Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the MCAQD, and
the EPA's final conditional approvals and full disapproval would not
prevent the County from enforcing them. The conditional approvals also
would not prevent any portion of rules 323 and 324 from being
incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as
discussed in a Memorandum dated July 9, 1992, from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S. EPA to EPA Regional Air
Directors, Regions I-X, Subject: ``Processing of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submittals,'' found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval
and conditional approvals for the next 30 days.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference MCAQD Rule 323, ``Fuel Burning Equipment from
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Sources,'' as revised on
November 2, 2016, and MCAQD Rule 324 ``Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE),'' as revised on November 2, 2016.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive
Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this proposed SIP disapproval and conditional
approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens, but will simply disapprove or
conditionally approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval and conditional approval, if
finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
will simply disapprove or conditionally approve certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove or conditionally
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is
proposing to disapprove or conditionally approve would not apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP disapproval and
conditional approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create
any new regulations, but will simply disapprove or conditionally
approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 16, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-27843 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61633-61634]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-288, OMB Control No. 3235-0325]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form F-4

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: 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.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form F-4 (17 CFR 239.34) is used by foreign issuers to register
securities in business combinations, reorganizations and exchange
offers pursuant to federal securities laws pursuant to the Securities
Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information collected is
intended to ensure that the information required to be filed by the
Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law
requirements and assures the public availability of such information.
The information provided is mandatory and all information is made
available to the public upon request. Form F-4 takes approximately
1,438.05 hours per response and is filed by approximately 39
respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 1,438.05 hours per response
(359.51 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a total annual
reporting burden of 14,021 hours (359.51 hours per response x 39
responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by November 14, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John

Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 5, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22098 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


ATTACHMENT B STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS a. Deadlines for Plan Preparation and Compliance There are no additional deadlines for plan preparation and compliance, other than those stated in the permit. Part I. C. of the permit, requires the permittee to develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) no later than 180 days after the effective date of the permit.

b . Contents of the Plan The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following items:

( 1) Pollution Prevention Team  The plan shall identify specific individuals within the facility organization as members of a storm water pollution prevention team who are responsible for developing the storm water pollution prevention plan and assisting the facility or terminal manager in its implementation, maintenance, and revision. The plan shall clearly identify the responsibilities of each team member. The activities and responsibilities of the team shall address all aspects of the facility's storm water pollution prevention plan.

( 2) Description of Potential Pollutant Sources  The plan shall provide a description of potential sources which may reasonably be expected to add significant amounts of pollutants to storm water discharges or which may result in the discharge of pollutants during dry weather from separate storm sewers draining the facility. The plan shall identify all activities and significant materials which may potentially be significant pollutant sources. The plan shall include, at a minimum:

( a) Drainage  A site map indicating the location of each point of discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity, an outline of the portions of the drainage area of each storm water outfall locations. The site map must also indicate the types of discharges contained in the drainage areas of the outfalls ( e. g., storm water and air conditioner condensate). In order to increase the readability of the map, the inventory of the types of discharges contained in each outfall may be kept as an attachment to the site map.

( b) Inventory Exposed Materials  An inventory of the types of materials handled at the site that potentially may be exposed to precipitation. Such inventory shall include a narrative description of significant materials that are or have been handled, treated, stored or disposed in a manner to allow exposure to storm water; method and location of onsite storage or disposal; dirt or gravel parking areas for storage of vehicles to be maintained; materials management practices employed to minimize contact of materials with storm water runoff; the location and a description of existing structural and on structural control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff and a description of any treatment the storm water receives.

( c) Spills and Leaks  A list of significant spills and significant leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that occurred at areas that are exposed to precipitation or that otherwise drain to a storm water conveyance at the facility. Such list shall be updated as appropriate during the term of the permit.

( d) Sampling Data  A summary of existing discharge sampling data describing pollultants in storm water discharges from the facility, including a summary of sampling data collected during the term of this permit.

( e) Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources  if applicable, a narrative description of the potential pollutant sources from the following activities: truck loading rack, maintenance shops, equipment or vehicle cleaning areas, paved dirt or gravel parking areas for vehicles, loading and unloading operations, outdoor storage activities, outdoor manufacturing or processing activities, significant dust or particulate generating processes activities, and onsite waste disposal practices. The description shall list specifically any significant potential source of pollutants at the site and for each potential source of pollutant at the site and for each potential source, any pollutant or pollutant parameter ( e. g., oil and grease, etc.) of concern shall be identified.

( 3) Measures and Controls  The permitte shall develop a description of storm water management controls appropriate for the facility, and implement such controls. The appropriateness and priorities of controls in plan shall reflect identified potential sources of pollutants at the facility. The description of storm water management controls shall address the following minimum components, including a schedule for implementing such controls:

( a) Good Housekeeping  All areas that may contribute pollutants to storm water discharges shall be maintained in a clean, orderly manner. If applicable, the following areas must be specifically addressed:

( i) Vehicle and Equipment Storage Areas  The storage of vehicles and equipment with actual or potential fluid leaks must be confined to designated areas ( delineated on the site map). The plan must describe measures that prevent or minimize contamination of the storm water runoff from these areas. The facility shall consider the use of drip pans under vehicles and equipment, indoor storage of the vehicles and equipment, installation of berming and diking of this area, use of absorbents, roofing or covering storage areas, cleaning pavement surface to remove oil and grease, or other equivalent methods.

( ii) Truck Loading Racks  The plan must describe measures that prevent or minimize contamination of the storm water runoff from fuel loading areas. The facility shall consider berming the loading rack area( s), using spill and overflow protection and cleanup equipment, minimizing runon/ runoff of storm water to the loading rack area( s) by way of storm water drains, using dry cleanup methods, collecting the storm water runoff and providing treatment or recycling, or other equivalent measures.

( iii) Material Storage Areas  Storage units of all materials ( e. g., used oil, used oil filters, spent solvents, paint wastes, radiator fluids, transmission fluids, hydraulic fluids) must be maintained in good condition so as to prevent contamination of storm water , and plainly labeled ( e. g. " used oil, spent solvents, etc.) The plan must describe measures that prevent or minimize contamination of the storm water runoff from such storage areas. The facility shall consider indoor storage of the materials, installation of berming and diking of the area, minimizing runon/ runoff of storm water to the areas, using dry clean up methods, collecting the storm water runoff and providing treatment, or other equivalent methods.

iv) Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Areas  The plan must describe measures that prevent or mininize contamination of storm water runoff from all areas used for vehicles and equipment cleaning. The facility shall consider performing all cleaning operations indoors, covering the cleaning operation, ensuring that all wash waters drain to the intended collection system, collecting the storm water runoff from the cleaning area and providing treatment or recycling, or other equivalent measures.

( v) Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance Areas  The plan must describe measures that prevent or minimize contamination of the storm water runoff from all areas used for vehicle and equipment maintenance. The facility shall consider performing all maintenance activities indoors, using drip pans, maintaining an organized inventory of materials used in the shop, draining all parts of fluids prior to disposal, prohibiting wet clean up practices where the practices would result in the discharge of pollutants to storm water drainage systems, using dry cleanup methods, collecting the storm water runoff from the maintenance area and providing treatment or recycling, minimizing runon/ runoff of storm water areas or other equivalent measures.

( b) Preventive Maintenance  A preventive maintenance program shall include timely inspection and maintenance of storm water management devices ( e. g., cleaning oil/ water separators for both sludge and oil layers, catch basins, drip pans, vehicle mounted drip containment devices) as well as inspecting and testing facility equipment and systems to uncover conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface waters, and ensuring appropriate maintenance of such equipment and systems. Procedures should be established insuring compliance with permit conditions during cleaning or maintenance periods. Preventative maintenance procedures shall be included in the plan. A schedule for routinely monitoring and cleaning the oil/ water separator( s) for both sludge and oil layers shall be specified in the plan. The permittee shall record all inspections and maintenance activities in the plan.

( c) Spill Prevention and Response Procedures  Areas where potential spills could contribute pollutant to storm water discharge and their accompanying drainage points, shall be identified clearly in the storm water pollution prevention plan . Adequate containment against spills and leaks must exist in these areas to prevent discharges of pollutants to surface waters. Where appropriate, specifying material shall be identified in the plan and made available to the appropriate personnel.

( d) Inspections  Qualified facility personnel shall be identified to inspect designated equipment and areas of the facility on a quarterly basis. The following areas shall be included in all inspections: storage area for vehicles and equipment awaiting maintenance, truck loading rack area( s), vehicle and equipment maintenance areas ( both indoors and outdoors), material storage areas, vehicle and equipment cleaning areas, and loading and unloading areas. Follow up procedures shall be used to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections. Records of inspections shall be maintained. The use of a checklist should be considered by the facility.

( e) Employee Training  Employee training programs shall inform personnel responsible for implementing activities identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan or otherwise responsible for storm water management of the components and goals of the storm water pollution prevention plan. Training should address topics such as spill response, good housekeeping and material management practices. The pollution prevention plan shall identify how often training will take place; at a minimum, training must be held annually ( once per calendar year). Employee training must, at a minimum, address the following areas when applicable to a facility: summary of the facility's pollution prevention plan requirements; used oil management; spent solvent management; spill prevention, response and control; fueling procedures; general good housekeeping practices; proper painting procedures; and used battery management.

( f) Recordkeeping and Internal Reporting Procedures  A description of incidents ( such as spills, or other discharges), along with other information describing the quality and quantity of storm water discharges shall be included in the plan required under this part. Inspections and maintenance activities shall be documented and records of such activities shall be incorporated into the plan.

( g) Non storm Water Discharges ( i) The plan shall include a certification that the discharge has been tested or evaluated for the presence of non storm water discharges. The certification shall include the identification of potential significant sources of non storm water at the site, a description of the results of and test and/ or evaluation for the presence of non storm water discharges, the evaluation criteria or testing method used, the date of any testing and, / or evaluation, and the onsite drainage points that were directly observed during the test.

Certifications shall be signed in accordance with Part II. D. 2. ( Signatory Requirements) of this permit. Such certification may not be practical if the facility operating the storm water discharge associated with industrial activity does not have access to an outfall, manhole, or other point of access to the ultimate conduit which receives the discharge. In such cases, the source identification section of the storm water pollution prevention plan shall indicate why the certification required by this part was not practical, along with the identification of potential significant sources of non storm water at the site. A discharger that is unable to provide the certification required by this paragraph must notify the Director.

( ii) Except for the following non storm water discharges: flows from fire fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings; hydrostatic test water; potable water sources including waterline flushings; drinking fountain water; uncontaminated compressor condensate; irrigation drainage; lawn waterings, vehicle washings that do not use detergents or other compounds; routine external building washdown that does not use detergents or other compounds; pavement washwater where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred ( unless all spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used; air conditioning condensate; compressor condensate; uncontaminated springs; uncontaminated ground water; and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents, all discharges covered by this plan shall be composed entirely of storm water.

( iii) If applicable, a copy of the NPDES permit issued for vehicle and equipment washwaters or, if a NPDES permit has not yet been issued, a copy of the pending application must be attached to or referenced in the plan. For facilities that discharge vehicle and equipment washwaters to the sanitary sewer system, the operator of the sanitary sewer system and associated treatment plant must be notified. In such cases a copy of the notification letter must be attached to the plan. If an industrial user permit is issued under a pretreatment program, a copy of that permit must be attached in that plan. In all cases, any permit condition or pretreatment requirements must be considered in the plan. If the washwaters are handled in another manner ( e. g., hauled offsite), the disposal method must be described and all pertinent documentation ( e. g., frequency, volume, destination, etc.) must be attached to the plan.

( iv) Failure to Certify  Any facility that is unable to provide the certification required ( testing for non stormwater discharges), must notify the Director by 180 days after the effective date of the permit. If the failure to certify caused by the inability to perform adequate tests or evaluations, such notification shall describe: the procedure of any test conducted for the presence of non storm water discharges; the results of such test or other relevant observations; potential sources of non storm water discharges to the storm sewer; and why adequate tests for such storm sewers were not feasible. Non storm water discharges to waters of the United States which are not authorized by a NPDES permit are unlawful, and must be terminated.

( h) Disposal Procedures  The disposal procedures for tank bottom waters, tank bottom sludge, O/ W Separator sediments, O/ W Separator oils, oil absorbent cleaning material ( s) and any washdown waters containing detergents, dispersants, emulsifiers, etc. must be documented in the plan.

( 4) Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation  Qualified personnel shall conduct comprehensive site compliance evaluations at appropriate intervals specified in the plan, but, in no case less than once a year. Such evaluations shall provide: ( a) Areas contributing to a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity shall be visually inspected for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system. Measures to reduce pollutant loadings shall be evaluated to determine whether they are adequate and properly implemented in accordance with the terms of the permit or whether additional control measures are needed. Structural storm water management measures, sediment and erosion control measures, and other structural pollution prevention measures identified in the plan shall be observed to ensure that they are operating correctly. A visual inspection of equipment needed to implement the plan, such as spill response equipment, shall be made.

( b) Based on the results of the evaluation, the description of potential pollutant sources identified in the plan in accordance with paragraph b.( 2)., Description of Potential Pollutant Sources, of the plan and pollution prevention measures and controls identified in the plan in accordance with paragraph b.( 3)., Measures and Controls of this plan shall be revised as appropriate within 2 weeks of such evaluation and shall provide for implementation for any changes to the plan in a timely manner, but in no case more than 12 weeks after the evaluation.

( c) A report summarizing the scope of the evaluation, personnel making the evaluation, the date( s) of the evaluation, major observations relating to the implementation of the storm water pollution prevention plan, and actions taken in accordance with Paragraph b.( 3)( b) ( above) of the permit shall be made and retained as part of the storm water pollution prevention plan for at least 3 years after the date of the evaluation. The report shall identify any incidents of noncompliance. Where a report does not identify any incidents of noncompliance, the report shall contain a certification that the facility is in compliance with the storm water pollution prevention plan and this permit. The report shall be signed in accordance with Part II. D. 2. ( Signatory Requirements) of this permit.

( d) Where compliance evaluation schedules overlap with inspections required under Paragraph. b.( 3)( d), the compliance evaluation may be conducted in place of one such inspection.

( e) A report summarizing the effectiveness of the methods of control for regulating the water flow rates through the O/ W separator( s) in order to maximize optimum pollutant reduction and compliance with permit limits.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 45467]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP14-112-003.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire
Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition to Amend the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity.
    Filed Date: 6/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160628-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/16.

    Docket Numbers: CP14-96-002.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Abbreviated application for limited amendment of the
certificate of public convenience and necessity.
    Filed Date: 7/01/16.
    Accession Number: 20160701-5329.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-61-000.
    Applicants: SourceGas Distribution LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): Statement of
Operating Conditions to be effective 6/1/2016; Filing Type: 1280.
    Filed Date: 6/30/2016.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>11 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/16.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-62-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)/.: COH SOC 6-29-2016
to be effective 6/29/2016; Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 7/1/16.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>78.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-837-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: DTI--Operational Gas Sales Report--
2016.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5334.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-900-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: DTI--Informational Fuel Report--2016.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5335.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1084-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing DTI--2016 Overrun and Penalty
Revenue Distribution.
    Filed Date: 7/6/16.
    Accession Number: 20160706-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/16.

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

    Dated: July 7, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16666 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P