August 19, 2008

TO:  Docket  # EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-008

FROM:  Cheryl Caffrey

RE:  Correspondence with John Reisel of the Center for Alternative Fuels
Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee Wisconsin on the paper “Catalyst Deterioration over the
Lifetime of Small Utility Engines”.

________________________________________________________________________

In October 2007, EPA received a copy of the technical paper entitled
“Catalyst Deterioration over the Lifetime of Small Utility Engines”.
 I reviewed the paper that was printed in the October 2007 Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Assocation (ISSN: 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. 57:1223-1233).  One of the conclusions of the technical
paper is: “The HC emissions did increase over the lifetime of an
engine; they increased routinely as the engine acquired hours. The
efficiency of the catalyst at HC oxidation also decreased as the engines
aged. As a result, for the engines at 187.5 hr, the post-catalyst HC
emissions were higher than the pre-catalyst HC emissions at 0 hr.”
(page 1233-based on Table 1 of page 1227)

The pre-catalyst HC results presented in Table 1 of page 1227 show that
the engine out emissions have increased noteably.   When calculating the
difference in emissions, pre and post catalyst at zero hour and aged,
one sees that the amount (in g/kWhr) of HC pollutants converted was
slightly increased for Engines 1 and 2 compared to baseline.

Given the size of the catalyst used on these engines and the space
velocity of the exhaust through the catalyst, the possibility exists
that the catalyst was converting its maximum amount of HC pollutants at
zero hour and was not designed to increase conversion as the engine out
emissions increased, hence “decreased efficiency”.

I discussed this idea with Mr. Reisel, one of the authors of the
article. Mr. Reisel responded by saying the following (summarized):  I
see the difference in how we are interpreting the conversion efficiency
of the catalyst.  We were considering the percent removed, and so when
we concluded that the efficiency was decreasing, as shown in Figure 3.
But, I see your point with the raw data in Table 1, and that more HC+NOx
is being removed in two of the 3 engines at 187.5 hours.  On the one
hand, that is good because it means that less pollution is getting out,
but we would also argue that it isn't very good because the engines
themselves are producing much more pollution.  But, your view gives me a
different perspective on the data that I should probably look into
further.


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Norfolk Southern
Corporation

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This revision
pertains to the removal of a nitrogen oxide (NOx) RACT permit for
sources located at the Norfolk Southern Corporation in Roanoke, Virginia
which have permanently shut down.  This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333 by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C.  Mail:  EPA- R03-OAR-2008-0333, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

 D.  Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by

e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On February 11, 2008, the Virginia
Department of

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP)

pertaining to the removal of a NOx RACT permit for sources located at
the Norfolk Southern Railway Company, located in Roanoke, Virginia, that
had permanently shut down.

I.  Background

Prior to the final designations of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
EPA developed a program to allow potential nonattainment areas to
voluntarily adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality
violations and mandated nonattainment area controls.  Areas with air
quality meeting the 1-hour ozone standard were eligible to participate.
In order to participate, state and local governments and EPA had to
develop and sign a memorandum of agreement that described the local
control measures the state or local community intended to adopt and
implement to reduce emissions of ozone-forming air pollutants.  This
agreement was known as an Early Action Compact (EAC).  Areas that
participated in the EAC program had the flexibility to institute their
own approach in maintaining clean air and protecting public health.

Several localities in the Winchester and Roanoke, Virginia areas elected
to participate in the EAC program.  Virginia’s strategy for enabling
these localities to participate in the EAC program was to have them be
subject to volatile organic compound (VOC) and NOx control measures from
which they had previously been exempt.  In order to enable the affected
localities to implement VOC and NOx controls, the list of VOC and NOx
emission control areas in 9 VAC 5-20-206, Volatile Organic Compound and
Nitrogen Oxide Emission Control Areas, was expanded to include the
counties of Botetourt, Frederick, and Roanoke, and the cities of
Roanoke, Salem, and Winchester.  This area became known as the Western
Virginia Emissions Control Area (70 FR 21625, April 27, 2005).  As a
result, the VOC and NOx control regulations of Chapter 40 became
applicable in the Roanoke area.

The Norfolk Southern Railway Company rail car and locomotive maintenance
facility located in  Roanoke, Virginia, was identified as one of the
sources located in the Western Virginia Emissions Control Area subject
to RACT.  Accordingly, the company prepared a RACT analysis to support a
RACT determination for the control of NOx emissions from the facility.
After undergoing public comment, a state operating permit was issued to
the source to ensure compliance with the RACT requirements.  The permit,
No. 20468, was submitted to EPA as a revision to the Commonwealth of
Virginia SIP on February 7, 2005.  EPA published its approval of the SIP
revision on April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21621).

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

On February 11, 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a revision
to its SIP which consisted of mutual agreements between the VDEQ and the
Norfolk Southern Corporation for permanent shut downs of certain NOx
RACT-subject sources located at the Norfolk Southern Corporation complex
in Roanoke, Virginia.  Since the time of EPA’s approval of the NOx
RACT requirements for the Norfolk Southern Railway Company (70 FR 21621,
April 27, 2005), many sources at the facility, including those that had
previously been subject to the NOx RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5-40, via
permit No. 20468, were permanently shut down.  As a result, the VADEQ is
requesting that EPA remove RACT permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP,
since it is no longer applicable.  Once EPA has approved this request
and VADEQ has notified Norfolk Southern Corporation of its approval, the
permit repeal will become effective 30 days later.

The units subject to the NOx RACT requirements of permit No. 20468,
which have permanently shut down, include the following:  Unit ID #
8-01--B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #
8-02--B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #
8-03--B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID
#8-04--Zurn Energy coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #
43-03--15 open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces; and Unit ID #
51-13/14--one 13-ton capacity electric arc furnace.

The February 11, 2008 SIP revision consists of signed mutual
determination agreements of permanent shut downs between the VADEQ and
Norfolk Southern Corporation for the previously identified RACT-subject
sources in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 5-20-220, and state
operating permit regulations 9 VAC 5-80-1210, subsection L.  Unit ID #
8-01—B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #
8-02—B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; and Unit ID #
8-03—B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler were permanently
shut down as per the shut down agreement between VADEQ and Northern
Southern Corporation, dated August 20, 2007.  Unit ID # 8-04—Zurn
Energy coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID # 43-03-- 15
open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces, and Unit # 15-13/14--one
13-ton capacity electric arc furnace, were permanently shut down as per
the shut down agreement between VADEQ and Northern Southern Corporation,
dated June 22, 2005.

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity.  The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed.  Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations.  Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents
or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney
General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va.
Code Sec. 10.1-1198,  precludes granting a privilege to documents and
information “required by law,” including documents and information
(required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization
or approval,” since Virginia must (enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts. . . .”   The opinion concludes that
“[r]egarding ( 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information
needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs
could not be privileged because such documents and information are
essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to
maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ([t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,(  any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil
penalty.  The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that
the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of
any Federally authorized programs, since (no immunity could be afforded
from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.(

Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program
consistent with the Federal requirements.  In any event, because EPA has
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA,
including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce
the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any
state enforcement effort.  In addition, citizen enforcement under
section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state
audit privilege or immunity law.

IV.  Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP
revision request, submitted on February 11, 2008, to remove NOx RACT
permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP.  The SIP revision consists of
mutual agreements between VADEQ and the Norfolk Southern Corporation for
permanent shut down of the units described above.  EPA is proposing
approval of the removal of NOx RACT permit No. 20468 from the Virginia
SIP with the understanding that no future operation of this equipment
shall occur until the owner has obtained the applicable permits pursuant
to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 of Virginia’s regulations.  Once EPA has
approved this request and VADEQ has notified Norfolk Southern
Corporation of EPA’s approval, the removal of permit No. 20468 from
the Virginia SIP will become effective 30 days later.  EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document.  These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
CAA; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the removal of a NOx RACT
permit from the Virginia SIP for sources at the Norfolk Southern
Corporation that have permanently shut down, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

_______May 14, 2008_________           ________________/s/____________

Dated:                                                      William T.
Wisniewski, Acting

Regional Administrator,

                                                                 Region
III.

 PAGE

 PAGE  11


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26371-26373]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97358; File No. SR-CFE-2023-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice
of a Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Reporting Requirements
for Exchange of Contract for Related Position Transactions and Block
Trades

April 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 14, 2023 Cboe
Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by CFE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. CFE also
has filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC''). CFE filed a written certification with the CFTC
under section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') \2\ on
April 14, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to streamline the process to report an
Exchange of Contract for Related Position (``ECRP'') transaction \3\ or
Block Trade \4\ when both parties to the transaction are utilizing the
same Authorized Reporter to report the transaction to the Exchange. The
scope of this filing is limited solely to the application of the
proposed rule change to security futures that may be traded on CFE.
Although no security futures are currently listed for trading on CFE,
CFE may list security futures for trading in the future. The text of
the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is
not attached to the publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ECRP transaction consists of a transaction in a Contract
listed on CFE and a transaction in a related position that is
negotiated off of CFE's trading facility and is then reported to CFE
which meets the parameters for an ECRP transaction under CFE's
rules. The related position must have a high degree of price
correlation to the underlying of the Contract transaction so that
the Contract transaction would serve as an appropriate hedge for the
related position. In every ECRP transaction, one party is the buyer
of (or the holder of the long market exposure associated with) the
related position and the seller of the corresponding Contract and
the other party is the seller of (or the holder of the short market
exposure associated with) the related position and the buyer of the
corresponding Contract.
    \4\ A Block Trade is a large transaction in a Contract listed on
CFE that is negotiated off of CFE's trading facility and is then
reported to CFE which meets the parameters for a Block Trade under
CFE's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE 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
    CFE Rule 414 (Exchange of Contract for Related Position) includes
provisions that govern the execution of ECRP transactions in CFE
products, and CFE Rule 415 (Block Trades) includes provisions that
govern the execution of Block Trades in CFE products. Rule 414(i) and
Rule 415(f) require each CFE Trading Privilege Holder (``TPH'') that
desires to execute ECRP transactions and Block Trades in CFE products
to designate at least one Authorized Reporter that is pre-authorized by
a CFE Clearing Member to report ECRP

transactions and Block Trades to the Exchange on behalf of the TPH.
    Rule 414(l) and Rule 415(i) describe the process that Authorized
Reporters must use to notify the Exchange of ECRP transactions and
Block Trades. The current notification process includes three steps.
First, the Authorized Reporter that is the initiator of a notification
of an ECRP transaction or Block Trade enters information regarding the
transaction into the CFE System. Second, the Authorized Reporter that
is the initiator of the notification of the ECRP transaction or Block
Trade provides a reference ID generated for the transaction by the CFE
System to the Authorized Reporter for the contra side of the
transaction. Third, the Authorized Reporter for the contra side of the
ECRP transaction or Block Trade accepts the notification to the
Exchange of the transaction as entered by the initiating Authorized
Reporter and enters contra side information for the transaction.
    As a result, an Authorized Reporter that is reporting an ECRP
transaction or Block Trade to the Exchange on behalf of both parties to
the transaction must go through these three steps in order to report
the transaction to the Exchange. In practice, this means that the
Authorized Reporter must enter information for one side of the
transaction on one screen within a Block/ECRP reporting tool that is a
component of the CFE System, receive an email with a reference ID for
the transaction generated by the CFE System, and then use the reference
ID to separately enter information for the other side of the
transaction on another screen within the Block/ECRP reporting tool.
    CFE is proposing to amend Rule 414(l) and Rule 415(i) to allow an
Authorized Reporter that is reporting an ECRP transaction or Block
Trade to the Exchange on behalf of both parties to the transaction to
report the transaction in one step. In practice, this would mean that
the Authorized Reporter may enter at one time all of the required
information for both sides of the transaction on one screen within the
Block/ECRP reporting tool. The Authorized Reporter would no longer need
to receive an email with a reference ID for the transaction or to go to
another screen within the Block/ECRP reporting tool to enter the
information for the contra side of the transaction. The proposed rule
change does not change the information that is required to be reported
to the Exchange relating to ECRP transactions and Block Trades.
    The proposed rule change revises Rule 414 and Rule 415 in the
following manner in order to allow an Authorized Reporter that is
reporting an ECRP transaction or Block Trade to the Exchange on behalf
of both parties to the transaction to do so in one step.
    The proposed rule change proposes to split both Rule 414(l) and
Rule 415(i) into two primary subsections. The first subsection in both
proposed new Rule 414(l)(i) and proposed new Rule 415(i)(i) describes
the current reporting process that would continue to apply when the
parties to an ECRP transaction or Block Trade are using different
Authorized Reporters to report the transaction to the Exchange. The
second subsection in both proposed new Rule 414(l)(ii) and proposed new
Rule 415(i)(ii) provides that if the parties to an ECRP transaction or
Block Trade are each utilizing the same Authorized Reporter to notify
the Exchange of the terms of the transaction, the Authorized Reporter
is able to enter all of the required information regarding both sides
of the transaction into the CFE System and to fully report the
transaction to the Exchange.
    Similarly, the proposed rule change proposes to revise Rule 414(m)
and Rule 415(j) to provide for two alternative ways in which an ECRP
transaction or Block Trade would be deemed to have been fully reported
to the Exchange for timing purposes in connection with measuring
adherence to permissible reporting period and reporting deadline
provisions within Rule 414 and Rule 415. Proposed New Rule 414(m)(i)
and proposed new Rule 415(j)(i) retain the current provision that an
ECRP transaction or Block Trade shall be deemed to have been fully
reported to the Exchange when the full report of the transaction has
been received by the CFE System matching engine following notification
to the CFE System of required information relating to the transaction
by the initiating Authorized Reporter and acceptance and notification
to the CFE System of required information relating to the transaction
by the contra side Authorized Reporter. Proposed new Rule 414(m)(ii)
and proposed new Rule 415(j)(ii) provide that an ECRP transaction or
Block Trade shall be deemed to have been fully reported to the Exchange
when the full report of the transaction has been received by the CFE
System matching engine following notification to the CFE System of
required information relating to the transaction by a single Authorized
Reporter for both parties to the transaction.
    The proposed rule change also includes some non-substantive
proposed wording and organizational changes to Rule 414(l), Rule
414(m), Rule 415(i), and Rule 415(j). For example, the Exchange
proposes to include revised lead-in language in Rule 414(l) and Rule
415(i) indicating that the CFE System includes a mechanism, in a form
and manner provided by the Exchange, for Authorized Reporters to enter
required information regarding an ECRP transaction or Block Trade, as
applicable. As proposed to be revised, Rules 414(l) and Rule 415(i)
then include in separate subsections, as further described above, the
reporting provisions relating to the scenario in which both parties to
an ECRP transaction or Block Trade, as applicable, are utilizing the
same Authorized Reporter and the reporting provisions relating to the
scenario in which the parties to an ECRP transaction or Block Trade are
not utilizing the same Authorized Reporter. As another example, the
Exchange proposes to change the organization of Rule 414(l) and Rule
415(i) by breaking out the provisions into additional subparagraphs
with new numbering and lettering for those subparagraphs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(1) \6\ and 6(b)(5) \7\ in particular, in
that it is designed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     to contribute to the ability of the Exchange to enforce
compliance by its TPHs and persons associated with its TPHs with the
provisions of the rules of the Exchange,
     to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
     to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
     to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with
respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities,
     to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system,
     and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change contributes to
the Exchange's ability to enforce compliance by its TPHs and persons
associated with its TPHs with the

provisions of the rules of the Exchange and to carry out the Exchange's
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in that the proposed
rule change facilitates the collection of trade information that the
Exchange may utilize in reviewing whether ECRP transactions and Block
Trades comply with Exchange rules.
    Additionally, the proposed rule change proposes to make clear to
TPHs the reporting process for the submission of required information
regarding an ECRP transaction or Block Trade when an Authorized
Reporter is reporting the transaction to the Exchange on behalf of both
parties to the transaction by describing that process in CFE's rules.
The proposed rule change also contributes to facilitating compliance
with CFE rules by making it easier for Authorized Reporters to provide
information to the Exchange regarding ECRP transactions and Block
Trades when an Authorized Reporter is reporting both sides of the
transaction. Similarly, the proposed rule change improves the
functioning of the reporting mechanism for ECRP transactions and Block
Trades and thus CFE's market by making the process to report these
types of transactions more efficient where the Authorized Reporter is
reporting both sides of the transaction. The proposed rule change does
not substantively change the existing reporting requirements for ECRP
transactions or Block Trades and instead serves to simplify the
reporting process in the scenario in which both parties to an ECRP
transaction or Block Trade, as applicable, are utilizing the same
Authorized Reporter.

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

    CFE does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will not burden intra-market competition because
the proposed rule amendments will apply equally to all TPHs. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will not burden
inter-market competition because the proposed rule change contributes
to the Exchange's ability to enforce compliance with its rules and to
carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization by
contributing to the Exchange's ability to obtain trade information that
it may utilize in reviewing whether ECRP transactions and Block Trades
comply with Rule 414 and 415.

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

    The proposed rule change will become operative on April 28, 2023.
At any time 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 refiled in accordance with the provisions of
section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CFE-2023-002 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-CFE-2023-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CFE-2023-002, and should be submitted on
or before May 19, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08978 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60550-60554]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2017-0523; FRL-9972-09-Region 9]

Arizona: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Arizona applied to the EPA for final authorization of changes
corresponding to certain federal hazardous waste rules promulgated
between May 26, 1998, and July 28, 2006 (also known as RCRA Cluster
VIII (checklist 167D) and Clusters IX through XVII) to its hazardous
waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
On October 5, 2017, EPA proposed to authorize the State's changes.
During the 30-day comment period no adverse comments were received.

DATES: The final authorization is effective January 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Land Division, 75 Hawthorne Street (LND-1-
1), San Francisco, CA 94105, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On July 14, 2017, Arizona applied to EPA for final authorization of
changes to the State hazardous waste program. EPA concludes that
Arizona's application to revise its authorized program meets all
statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth
in RCRA sec. 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271.
Therefore, EPA grants Arizona final authorization to operate as part of
its hazardous waste program the changes listed below in Section E of
this document, as further described in the authorization application.
    Arizona has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program application, subject to the limitations of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

B. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that the changes described in
Arizona's authorization application will become part of the authorized
State hazardous waste program, and therefore will be federally
enforceable. Arizona will continue to have primary enforcement
authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA
retains its authorities under RCRA secs. 3007,

3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized state
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Arizona is being
authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed
by today's action.

C. What were the comments on EPA's proposal and what is EPA's response?

    A single comment in support of the action and no adverse comments
were received during the public comment period.

D. For what has Arizona previously been authorized?

    Arizona initially received final authorization on November 20,
1985, to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Arizona
received authorization for revisions to its program on August 6, 1991
(56 FR 37290 effective October 7, 1991), July 13, 1992 (57 FR 30905
effective September 11, 1992), November 23, 1992 (57 FR 54932 effective
January 22, 1993), October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57745 effective December 27,
1993), July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36731 effective June 12, 1995), March 7,
1997 (62 FR 10464 effective May 6, 1997), October 28, 1998 (63 FR
57605-57608 effective December 28, 1998), and March 17, 2004 (69 FR
12544 effective March 17, 2004), originally published on October 27,
2000 (65 FR 64369).

E. What changes is EPA authorizing with today's action?

    Arizona submitted a final complete program revision application to
EPA dated July 14, 2017, seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program that correspond to certain federal rules
promulgated between May 26, 1998, and July 28, 2006 (also known as RCRA
Cluster VIII (Checklist 167D only), Cluster IX (Checklists 169 and 173-
180) and Clusters X through XVII). EPA has determined that Arizona's
hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with,
and no less stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy
all the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
Accordingly, EPA grants Arizona final authorization for the following
program changes:

Program Revision Changes for Federal Rules

    Arizona adopts by reference the federal RCRA regulations in effect
January 29, 2007, at Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) Title 18,
Chapter 8, Article 2 (AAC R18-8-260 through 280 effective September 30,
2016). The federal requirements for which the State is being authorized
are listed in the table below, noting the Arizona Administrative
Register (AAR) volume and page and the AAC implementing rule sections.
EPA is excluding Checklist 204 Performance Track from authorization
because the program has been discontinued. An asterisk (*) after a
checklist number indicates a rule that is optional for state adoption.

                                     State Analogues to the Federal Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Description of Federal Requirement                                                         Analogous Arizona
  and Checklist number (* Indicates         Federal Register Volume, Page and Date        Register (Volume/Page)
              Optional)                                                                  and Administrative Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Processing Secondary          63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998........................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Materials Exclusion Rule.                                                                261(A), R18-8-268 July
 (Checklist 167 D *).                                                                     24, 2000.
Petroleum Refining Process Wastes     63 FR 42110, August 6, 1998......................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Rule. (Checklist 169).                                                                   261, 266, 268 July 24,
                                                                                2000.
Land Disposal Restrictions;           63 FR 51254, September 24, 1998..................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Treatment Standards for Spent                                                            268 July 24, 2000.
 Potliners from Primary Aluminum
 Reduction Rule (K088). (Checklist
 173).
Post-Closure Permit Requirement and   63 FR 56710, October 22, 1998....................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Closure Process Rule (Checklist 174                                                      264, 265, 270 July 24,
 *).                                                                                2000.
HWIR-Media Rule. (Checklist 175 *)..  63 FR 65874, November 30, 1998...................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
                                                                                260, 261, 264, 265,
                                                                                268, 270(A), (T) and
                                                                                (U) July 24, 2000.
Universal Waste Rule--Technical       63 FR 71225, December 24, 1998...................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Amendments. (Checklist 176 *).                                                           266, 273 July 24,
                                                                                2000.
Organic Air Emission Standards:       64 FR 3381, January 21, 1999.....................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Clarification and Technical                                                              262, 264, 265 July 24,
 Amendments Rule. (Checklist 177).                                                        2000.
Petroleum Refining Process Wastes--   64 FR 6806, February 11, 1999....................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Leachate Exemption Rule. (Checklist                                                      261 July 24, 2000.
 178 *).
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV:  64 FR 25408, May 11, 1999........................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Treatment Standards for Wood                                                             261, 262, 268, July
 Preserving Wastes, and Treatment                                                         24, 2000.
 Standards for Metal Wastes, and
 Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers, and
 Carbamate Treatment Standards, and
 K088 Treatment Standards Rule.
 (Checklist 179).
Test Procedures for the Analysis of   64 FR 26315, May 14, 1999........................  6 AAR 3093, AAC R18-8-
 Oil and Grease and Non-Polar                                                             260 July 24, 2000.
 Material Rule. (Checklist 180).
Universal Waste Rule: Specific        64 FR 36466, July 6, 1999........................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 Provisions for Hazardous Waste                                                           260, 261,, 264, 265,
 Lamps Rule. (Checklist 181).                                                             268, 270, and 273
                                                                                April 15, 2003.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards     64 FR 52828, September 30, 1999..................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 for Hazardous Waste Combustors                                                           260, 261, 264, 265,
 Rule. (Checklist 182).                                                                   266,, and 270 April
                                                                                15, 2003.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards     64 FR 63209, November 19, 1999...................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 for Hazardous Waste Combustors,                                                          261 and 266 April 15,
 Technical Correction Rule.                                                               2003.
 (Checklist 182.1).
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV-- 64 FR 56469, October 20, 1999....................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 Technical Corrections Rule.                                                              261, 262, and 268
 (Checklist 183).                                                                         April 15, 2003.
Accumulation Time for Waste Water     65 FR 12378, March 8, 2000.......................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 Treatment Sludges Rule. (Checklist                                                       262 April 15, 2003.
 184 *).

Organobromine Production Wastes       65 FR 14472, March 17, 2000......................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 Vacatur (Checklist 185 *).                                                               261 and 268 April 15,
                                                                                2003.
Amendments to Streamline the NPDES    65 FR 30886, May 15, 2000........................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Program Regulations; Round Two                                                           270 and 271 December
 Rule. (Checklist 186).                                                                   4, 2004.
Petroleum Refining Process Wastes--   65 FR 36365, June 8, 2000........................  9 AAR 816, AAC R18-8-
 Clarification (Checklist 187).                                                           261 and 268 April 15,
                                                                                2003.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards--   65 FR 42292, July 10, 2000, 66 FR 24270, May 14,   10 AAR, AAC 4364 R18-8-
 Technical Corrections. (Checklist     2001, 66 FR 35087, July 3, 2001.                   261, 264 and 270
 188 *).                                                                                December 4, 2004.
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and    65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000....................  10 AAR, AAC 4364 R18-8-
 LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes.                                                        261 and 268 December
 (Checklist 189).                                                                         4, 2004.
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV-- 65 FR 81373, December 26, 2000...................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Deferral for PCBs in Soil.                                                               268 December 4, 2004.
 (Checklist 190).
Mixed Waste Rule. (Checklist 191 *).  66 FR 27218, May 16, 2001........................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
                                                                                266 December 4, 2004.
Mixture and Derived-From Rules        66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001........................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Revisions. (Checklist 192 A *).                                                          261 and 268 December
                                                                                4, 2004.
Land Disposal Restrictions            66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001........................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Correction. (Checklist 192 B).                                                           268 December 4, 2004.
Change of Official EPA Mailing        66 FR 34374, June 28, 2001.......................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Address. (Checklist 193).                                                                260, 261, 265 December
                                                                                4, 2004.
Mixture and Derived-From Rules        66 FR 50332, October 3, 2001.....................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Revision II. (Checklist 194 *).                                                          261 December 4, 2004.
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing      66 FR 58258, November 20, 2001, 67 FR 17119,       10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Wastes Identification and Listing.    April 9, 2002.                                     261 and 268 December
 (Checklist 195).                                                                         4, 2004.
CAMU Amendments. (Checklist 196 *)..  67 FR 2962, January 22, 2002.....................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
                                                                                260 and 264 December
                                                                                4, 2004.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards     67 FR 6792, February 13, 2002....................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 for Combustors: Interim Standards.                                                       264, 265, 266 and 270
 (Checklist 197 *).                                                                       December 4, 2004.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards     67 FR 6968, February 14, 2002....................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 for Combustors: Corrections.                                                             266 and 270 December
 (Checklist 198).                                                                         4, 2004.
Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent   67 FR 11251, March 13, 2002......................  10 AAR 4364, AAC R18-8-
 Materials Being Reclaimed as Solid                                                       261, December 4, 2004.
 Wastes and TCLP Use with MGP Waste.
 (Checklist 199).
Zinc Fertilizer Rule. (Checklist      67 FR 48393, July 24, 2002.......................  11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-
 200).                                                                                261, 266 and 268,
                                                                                February 4, 2006.
Treatment Variance for Radioactively  67 FR 62618, October 7, 2002.....................  11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-
 Contaminated Batteries. (Checklist                                                       268 February 4, 2006.
 201 *).
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards     67 FR 77687, December 19, 2002...................  11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-
 for Hazardous Waste Combustors:                                                          270 February 4, 2006.
 Corrections 2. (Checklist 202 *).
Recycled Used Oil Management          68 FR44659, July 30, 2003........................  11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-
 Standards; Clarification (Sec.                                                           261(H) February 4,
 261.5(j) correction only).                                                               2006.
 (Checklist 203 *).
NESHAP: Surface Coating of            69 FR 22601 April 26, 2004.......................  11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-
 Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks.                                                       264 and 265 February
 (Checklist 205 *).                                                                       4, 2006.
Nonwastewaters from Dyes and          70 FR 9138, February 24, 2005, 70 FR 35032 June    12 AAR 3061, AAC R18-8-
 Pigments. (Checklist 206).            13, 2005.                                          261 and 268 October 1,
                                                                                2006.
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest      70 FR 10776, March 4, 2005, 70 FR 35034, June 16,  12 AAR 3061, AAC R18-8-
 Rule. (Checklist 207).                2005.                                              260, 261, 262, 263,
                                                                                264 and, 265 October
                                                                                1, 2006.
Methods Innovation Rule and SW-846    70 FR 34538, March 4, 2005, 70 FR 44150, June 16,  12 AAR 3061, AAC R18-8-
 Final Update IIIB (partial; no        2005.                                              260, 261, 264, 265,
 clarifications incorporated by                                                           266, 268 and 270
 reference from 40 CFR part 279).                                                         October 1, 2006.
 (Checklist 208 *).
Universal Waste Rule: Specific        70 FR 45508, August 5, 2005......................  12 AAR 3061, AAC R18-8-
 Provisions for Mercury Containing                                                        260, 261, 264, 265,
 Equipment. (Checklist 209 *).                                                            266, 268, 270 and 273
                                                                                October 1, 2006.
Revision of Wastewater Treatment      70 FR 57769, October 4, 2005.....................  14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-
 Exemptions for Hazardous Waste                                                           261 March 3, 2008.
 Mixtures (``Headworks
 exemptions''). (Checklist 211 *).
NESHAP: Final Standards for           70 FR 59402, October 12, 2005....................  14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-
 Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I                                                      260, 264, 265, 266 and
 Final Replacement Standards and                                                          270 March 3, 2008.
 Phase II). (Checklist 212 *).
Burden Reduction Initiative.          71 FR 16862, April 4, 2006.......................  14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-
 (Checklist 213 *).                                                                       260, 261, 264, 265,
                                                                                266, 268, and 270
                                                                                March 3, 2008.
Corrections to Errors in the Code of  71 FR 40254, July 14, 2006.......................  14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-
 Federal Regulations (partial; no                                                         260, 261, 262, 264,
 corrections incorporated from Parts                                                      265, 266, 267, 268,
 267 or 279). (Checklist 214).                                                            270, 271 and 273 March
                                                                                3, 2008.
Cathode Ray Tubes Rule. (Checklist    71 FR 42928, July 28, 2006.......................  14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-
 215 *).                                                                                260 and 261 March 3,
                                                                                2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Where are the revised state rules different from the federal rules?

    Since 1984, Arizona hazardous waste rules have contained several
procedural requirements that are more stringent than EPA's. These more
stringent procedural requirements are authorized by Arizona Revised
Statutes (ARS) section 49-922, which in directing Arizona to adopt
hazardous waste rules, prohibits only nonprocedural standards that are
more stringent than EPA:
    1. Hazardous Waste Manifests. Arizona requires hazardous waste
generators; transporters; and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) to provide a copy of all hazardous waste manifests
to Arizona monthly. [See AAC R18-8-262(I) and (J); R18-8-263(C), R18-8-
264(J) and R18-8- 265(J).] Federal regulations governing distribution
of copies of the manifest do not require manifests to be provided to
the state.
    2. Annual Reports. Hazardous waste large quantity generators (LQGs)
and TSDFs must submit reports to Arizona annually rather than every two
years as the federal regulations require. [See AAC R18-8-260(E)(3);
R18-8-262(H), R18-8-264(I) and R18-8-265(I).] Small quantity generators
(SQGs) must also submit annual rather than biennial reports under R18-
8-262(H).
    3. Recyclers are required to submit annual reports to Arizona
rather than no reports at all [AAC R18-8- 261(J)].
    EPA cannot delegate the federal requirements in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)
and 261.41 contained in the Cathode Ray Tubes Rule set forth in 71 FR
42928, July 28, 2006. While Arizona adopted these requirements by
reference in 14 AAR 409, AAC R18-8-260 and 261, EPA will continue to
implement these requirements.
    EPA gave notice at 80 FR 18777 of the removal of the provisions at
40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 40 CFR 261.38 related to comparable fuels due
to the DC Circuit's vacatur of the ``Hazardous Waste Combustors Revised
Standards'' Final Rule (63 FR 33782, June 19, 1998) in Natural Res.
Def. Council v. EPA, 755 F.3d 1010 (DC Cir. 2014). This rule was
previously adopted and approved as part of Arizona's authorized
program, but in light of the vacatur, EPA no longer considers these
provisions to be part of Arizona's federally authorized program. On May
14, 2009, EPA gave notice at 74 FR 22741 of the termination of the
National Environmental Performance Track Program; therefore, EPA is
excluding provisions in Arizona's program implementing Performance
Track, Checklist 204 (11 AAR 5523, AAC R18-8-262, February 4, 2006).
    Other than the differences discussed above, Arizona incorporates by
reference the remaining federal rules listed in Section E; therefore,
there are no significant differences between the remaining federal
rules and the revised State rules being authorized today.

G. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Arizona will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. Section
3006(g)(1) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)(1), gives EPA the authority to
issue or deny permits or parts of permits for requirements for which
the State is not authorized. Therefore, whenever EPA adopts standards
under HSWA for activities or wastes not currently covered by the
authorized program, EPA may process RCRA permits in Arizona for the new
or revised HSWA standards until Arizona has received final
authorization for such new or revised HSWA standards. EPA and Arizona
have agreed to a joint permitting process for facilities covered by
both the authorized program and standards under HSWA for which the
State is not yet authorized, and for handling existing EPA permits
after the State receives authorization.

H. How does today's action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Arizona?

    Arizona is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian country within the State, which includes the Cocopah Tribe of
Arizona; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Gila
River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation; Havasupai
Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai
Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation; Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation; Navajo Nation; Quechan Tribe
of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community of the Salt River Reservation; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the
San Carlos Reservation; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona;
Tohono O'odham Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian
Reservation; and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. Therefore, this
action has no effect on Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction over
Indian country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA
program on these lands.

I. What is codification and is EPA codifying Arizona's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not
codifying the authorization of Arizona's changes at this time. However,
EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart D for this
authorization of Arizona's program changes until a later date.

J. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
(RCRA State authorization) from the requirements of Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of
RCRA sec. 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Therefore, this action is not subject to review
by OMB. This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's
proposed authorization of Arizona's revised hazardous waste program
under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866. This action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same
reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State
RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA sec. 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because
this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least
equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal
requirements, and impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse
human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective 30 days after the final
approval is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
confidential business information, hazardous waste, hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, intergovernmental relations, penalties,
reporting and record keeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: December 5, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2017-27524 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72964]
[DOCID:fr29no10-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9233-1]

Determinations of Attainment by the Applicable Attainment Date
for the Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas,
Arizona; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing
the November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67220), direct final rule determining that
the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas areas in Arizona had
attained the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal
to ten microns by the applicable attainment date. On the basis of this
determination, EPA concluded that these three ``moderate''
nonattainment areas were not subject to reclassification. In the direct
final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted by
December 2, 2010, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On
November 3, 2010, EPA received a comment. EPA believes this comment is
adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA
will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the
proposed action also published on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67303). EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 75 FR 67220 on November 2,
2010, is withdrawn as of November 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, Air
Division (AIR-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, National Parks, Particulate matter, Wilderness Areas.

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

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-29937 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78282-78283]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63472; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule and Circular Regarding Trading
Permit Holder Application and Other Related Fees

December 8, 2010.
    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 November 30, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and circular
regarding Trading Permit Holder application and other related fees
(``Trading Permit Fee Circular'') as they apply to the description of a
Market-Maker Trading Permit. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.cboe.org/legal/, at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE is proposing to amend the Market-Maker Trading Permit
description in its Fees Schedule and Trading Permit Fee Circular to
accommodate the listing of series on the Hybrid Trading System, in a
class that is typically traded on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform.\3\
Currently, the bandwidth allowance associated with a Market-Maker
Trading Permit where the Trading Permit Holder maintains an appointment
in a Hybrid 3.0 class is proportionately reduced to [sic] by the
appointment cost of the class. However, if a Market-Maker is able to
submit electronic quotes in a Hybrid 3.0 class, such as a Lead Market-
Maker that streams quotes in the class, the Market-Maker shall receive
the quoting bandwidth allowance attributable to that Hybrid 3.0 class
to quote in, and only in, that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa) provides that the `` `Hybrid Trading
System' refers to the Exchange's trading platform that allows
Market-Makers to submit electronic quotes in their appointed
classes. `Hybrid 3.0 Platform' is an electronic trading platform on
the Hybrid Trading System that allows one or more quoters to submit
electronic quotes which represent the aggregate Market-Maker quoting
interest in a series for the trading crowd * * * Classes authorized
by the Exchange for trading on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform shall be
referred to as Hybrid 3.0 classes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate the listing of series on the Hybrid Trading System
in a class that is considered to be a Hybrid 3.0 class, CBOE is
proposing the following changes effective December 1, 2010. First,
because there is only one product that trades on Hybrid 3.0 (the S&P
500 Index option class or ``SPX''), and the appointment cost for that
class is 1.0, CBOE is proposing to delete the provision in the CBOE
Fees Schedule and the Trading Permit Fee Circular that reduces [sic]
amount of quoting bandwidth proportionate to the appointment cost
allocated to Market-Maker Trading Permit Holders that maintain an
appointment in a Hybrid 3.0 class and CBOE is proposing to delete the
language referencing the bandwidth allowance ``attributable to that
class.'' Second, CBOE is proposing to add language to the description
in both the Fees Schedule and the Trading Permit Fee Circular to
specifically reference series traded on the Hybrid Trading System
within a Hybrid 3.0 class. The allocated bandwidth allowance will
continue to be limited to quoting only in that class. For example, if a
particular series of SPX trades on the Hybrid Trading System, a Market-
Maker Trading Permit Holder with an appointment in SPX may only use its
allocated bandwidth to trade in SPX.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change will treat all Market-Maker Trading Permit
Holders with an appointment in a Hybrid 3.0 class in a consistent
manner. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \5\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among persons
using its facilities for the reasons described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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

    The foregoing rule has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml; or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-103 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 Number SR-CBOE-2010-103. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 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 No. SR-CBOE-2010-103 and should be submitted on or
before January 5, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31437 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P