Quotation Adjustments protections. Phlx intends to file a rule
change to remove the rule text which provides, ``except for
Automated Quotation Adjustments,'' as OPG Orders are subject to that
risk protection. BX will not include the exception in the proposed
rule text. OPG Orders are handled in the same manner by the Phlx
System today and the BX System, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to an Opening Sweep, the Exchange further provides the
manner in which Opening Sweeps may be entered into the System. The
Exchange proposes rule text within Options 3, Section 8(b)(1)(B), which
is similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 8(b)(i)(B). An Opening Sweep may
be entered at any price with a minimum price variation applicable to
the affected series, on either side of the market, at single or
multiple price level(s), and may be cancelled and re-entered. A single
Market Maker may enter multiple Opening Sweeps, with each Opening Sweep
at a different price level. If a Market Maker submits multiple Opening
Sweeps, the System will consider only the most recent Opening Sweep at
each price level submitted by such Market Maker. Unexecuted Opening
Sweeps will be cancelled once the affected series is open.\78\ The
Exchange believes that the addition of Opening Sweeps will also provide
certainty to market participants as to the manner in which the System
will handle such interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(b)(1)(B). See also
proposed BX Options 3, Section 7(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to trade allocation, the proposal notes at proposed BX
Options 3, Section 8(b)(2) that the System will allocate pursuant to BX
Options 3, Section 10, as is the case today. This rule text is similar
to Phlx Options 3, Section 8(b)(ii).\79\ The allocation methodology is
not being amended with this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Current BX Options 3, Section 8(b)(5) states, ``If the BX
Opening Cross price is selected and fewer than all contracts of
Eligible Interest that are available in BX Options would be
executed, all Eligible Interest shall be executed at the BX Opening
Cross price in accordance with the execution algorithm assigned to
the associated underlying option.'' The Exchange would continue to
allocate pursuant to the Exchange's allocation methodology within
Options 3, Section 10. Further, in accordance with current BX
Options 3, Section 8(b)(6), all eligible interest will be executed
at the Opening Price and displayed on OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this allocation is consistent with the
Act because it mirrors the current allocation process on BX in other
trading sessions.
    The Exchange proposes at BX Options 3, Section 8(d) the specific
times that eligible interest may be submitted into BX's System. The
Exchange's proposed time for entering Market Maker Valid Width Quotes
and Opening Sweeps (9:25 a.m.) eligible to participate in the Opening
Process, are consistent with the Act because the times are intended to
tie the option Opening Process to quoting in certain underlying
securities; \80\ it presumes that option quotes submitted before any
indicative quotes have been disseminated for the underlying security
may not be reliable or intentional. The Exchange believes the time
represents a reasonable timeframe at which to begin utilizing option
quotes, based on the Exchange's experience when underlying quotes start
becoming available. The proposed language adds specificity to the rule
regarding the submission of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ For purposes of this rule, the underlying security can also
be an index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal at BX Options 3, Section 8(d)(1) describes
when the Opening Process can begin with specific time-related triggers.
The proposed rule, which provides that the Opening Process for an
option series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m., when the System
has received an opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying
security in the case of equity options or in the case of index options
is consistent with the Act. This requirement is intended to tie the
option Opening Process to receipt of liquidity. If the System has not
received an opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying
security, the Exchange will not initiate the Opening Process or
continue an ongoing Opening Process. The Exchange's proposal to amend
its Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the new rule
continues to seek the best price. Phlx Rules at Options 3, Section
8(d)(iii) and (iv) describe quoting requirements for Lead Market Makers
once an underlying security in the assigned option series has opened
for trading. Today, BX, unlike Phlx, does not require its Lead Market
Makers to submit Valid Width Quotes. BX is not proposing to adopt the
same quoting requirements during the Opening Process that exist on
Phlx. Therefore, the Phlx requirement for Lead Market Makers would not
be applicable to BX. Further, proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(d)(3)
makes clear that the Opening Process will stop and an option series
will not open if the ABBO becomes crossed. Therefore, the Exchange does
not note within proposed Options 3, Section 8(d)(1) that the ABBO may
not be crossed. While, BX is not adopting Phlx's requirement to quote
in the Opening Process, protections exist within proposed Options 3,
Section 8(d)(4). A Valid Width NBBO must be present for BX to Open with
a Trade pursuant to this proposal.
    The Exchange's proposed rule considers the underlying security,
including indexes, which must be open on the primary market for a
certain time period for all options to be determined by the Exchange
for the Opening Process to commence. The Exchange proposes a time
period be no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5 seconds to
permit the price of the underlying security to settle down and not
flicker back and forth among prices after its opening. Since it is
common for a stock to fluctuate in price immediately upon opening, the
Exchange accounts for such volatility in its process. The volatility
reflects a natural uncertainty about the ultimate Opening Price, while
the buy and sell interest is matched. The Exchange's proposed range is
consistent with the Act, because it ensures that it has the ability to
adjust the period for which the underlying security must be open on the
primary market. The Exchange may determine that in periods of high/low
volatility that allowing the underlying to be open for a longer/shorter
period of time may help to ensure more stability in the marketplace
prior to initiating the Opening Process.
    Similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 8(d)(v), BX Options 3, Section
8(d)(3) provides that the Opening Process will stop and an option
series will not open if the ABBO becomes crossed. Once this condition
no longer exists, the Opening Process in the affected option series
will start again pursuant to paragraphs (f)-(k) of Options 3, Section
8. All eligible opening interest will continue to be considered during
the Opening Process when the process is re-started. Not opening if the
ABBO becomes crossed is

consistent with the Act and the protection of investors and the public
interest because a crossed ABBO is indicative of uncertainty in the
marketplace with respect to where the option series should be valued.
Waiting for the ABBO to become uncrossed before initiating the Opening
Process ensures that there is stability in the marketplace and will
assist the Exchange in determining the Opening Price. Unlike Phlx
Options 3, Section 8(d)(v),\81\ BX will not consider if a Valid Width
Quote(s) is no longer present. Unlike Phlx, BX does not require its
Lead Market Makers to quote in the Opening Process. This requirement is
not necessary for BX as BX's market would open with a BBO, pursuant to
Options 3, Section 8(f), unless the ABBO becomes crossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Phlx Options 3, Section 8(d)(v) provides, ``The Opening
Process will stop and an option series will not open if the ABBO
becomes crossed or when a Valid Width Quote(s) pursuant to paragraph
(d)(i) is no longer present. Once each of these conditions no longer
exist, the Opening Process in the affected option series will start
again pursuant to paragraphs (f)-(k) below.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add rule text, within proposed Options
3, Section 8(d)(4), to make clear that the Exchange would not open with
a trade, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2), if a Valid Width NBBO is not
present is consistent with the Act. Once this condition no longer
exists, the Opening Process in the affected options series will start
again pursuant to paragraphs (j) and (k) below. Today, BX would not
open with a trade unless there is a Valid Width NBBO present. This
would remain the case with this proposal. The Exchange believes that
the addition of this text provides market participants with an
expectation of the circumstances under which the Exchange would open an
option series, as well as price protection afforded to interest
attempting to participate in the Opening Process on BX.
Reopening After a Trading Halt
    In order to provide certainty to market participants in the event
of a trading halt, the Exchange provides in its proposal information
regarding the manner in which a trading halt would impact the Opening
Process. Proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(e) provides if there is a
trading halt or pause in the underlying security, the Opening Process
will start again, irrespective of the specific times listed in
paragraph (d). The Exchange's proposal to restart, in the event of a
trading halt, is consistent with the Act and promotes just and
equitable principles of trade because the proposed rule ensures that
there is stability in the marketplace in order to assist the Exchange
in determining the Opening Price. Current BX Options 3, Section 8(b)
similarly provides that an Opening Cross shall occur when trading
resumes after a trading halt. The Exchange is not amending this
provision, rather the text is being presented similar to Phlx's Options
3, Section 8.
Opening With a BBO
    The Exchange's proposed rule accounts for a situation where there
are no opening quotes or orders that lock or cross each other and no
routable orders locking or crossing the ABBO. In this situation, the
System will open with an opening quote by disseminating the Exchange's
best bid and offer among quotes and orders (``BBO'') that exist in the
System at that time, if any of the conditions are met (1) a Valid Width
NBBO is present; (2) a certain number of other options exchanges (as
determined by the Exchange) have disseminated a firm quote on OPRA; or
(3) a certain period of time (as determined by the Exchange) has
elapsed. These three conditions are similar to BX's current rule text
within Options 3, Section 8(b). The Exchange desires to maintain these
three potential conditions which it believes are valid sources of
liquidity to determine an Opening Price.
Further Opening Processes and Price Discovery Mechanism
    The proposed rule promotes just and equitable principles of trade
because, in arriving at the Potential Opening Price, the rule considers
the maximum number of contracts that can be executed, which results in
a price that is logical and reasonable in light of away markets and
other interest present in the System. As noted herein, the Exchange's
Opening Price is bounded by the OQR without trading through the limit
price(s) of interest within OQR, which is unable to fully execute at
the Opening Price, in order to provide Participants with assurance that
their orders will not be traded through. Although the Exchange applies
other boundaries such as the BBO, the OQR provides a range of prices
that may be able to satisfy additional contracts while still ensuring a
reasonable Opening Price. The Exchange seeks to execute as much volume
as is possible at the Opening Price. When choosing between multiple
Opening Prices when some contracts would remain unexecuted, using the
lowest bid or highest offer of the largest sized side of the market
promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it uses size as
a tie breaker.
    The System will calculate an OQR for a particular option series
that will be utilized in the price discovery mechanism if the Exchange
has not opened, pursuant to the provisions in Options 3, Section 8(d)-
(i). OQR would broaden the range of prices at which the Exchange may
open to allow additional interest to be eligible for consideration in
the Opening Process. OQR is intended to limit the Opening Price to a
reasonable, middle ground price, and thus reduce the potential for
erroneous trades during the Opening Process. Although the Exchange
applies other boundaries such as the BBO, the OQR provides a range of
prices that may be able to satisfy additional contracts while still
ensuring a reasonable Opening Price. More specifically, the Exchange's
Opening Price is bounded by the OQR without trading through the limit
price(s) of interest within OQR, which is unable to fully execute at
the Opening Price in order to provide participants with assurance that
their orders will not be traded through. The Exchange seeks to execute
as much volume as is possible at the Opening Price.
    The Exchange's method for determining the Potential Opening Price
and Opening Price is consistent with the Act because the proposed
process seeks to discover a reasonable price and considers both
interest present in BX's System as well as away market interest. The
Exchange's method seeks to validate the Opening Price and avoid opening
at aberrant prices. The rule provides for opening with a trade, which
is consistent with the Act, because it enables an immediate opening to
occur within a certain boundary without need for the price discovery
process. The boundary provides protections while still ensuring a
reasonable Opening Price.
    The proposed rule considers more than one Potential Opening Price,
which is consistent with the Act, because it forces the Potential
Opening Price to fall within the OQR boundary, thereby providing price
protection. Specifically, the mid-point calculation balances the price
among interest participating in the Opening, when there is more than
one price at which the maximum number of contracts could execute.
Limiting the mid-point calculation to the OQR, when a price would
otherwise fall outside of the OQR, ensures the final mid-point price
will be within the protective OQR boundary. If there is more than one
Potential Opening Price possible, where no contracts would be left
unexecuted and any price used for the mid-point calculation is an away
market price,

when contracts will be routed, the System will use the away market
price as the Potential Opening Price.
    The Exchange's proposal to route all interest, pursuant to Options
3, Section 10(a)(1), is consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes
that it routing all routable interest will provide all market
participants the opportunity to have their interest executed on away
markets.
    The price discovery mechanism reflects what is generally known as
an imbalance process and is intended to attract liquidity to improve
the price at which an option series will open as well as to maximize
the number of contracts that can be executed on the opening. This
process will only occur if the Exchange has not been able to otherwise
open an option series utilizing the other processes available in
proposed BX Options 3, Section 8. The Exchange believes the process
presented in the price discovery mechanism is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade because the process applies a proposed,
wider boundary to identify the Opening Price and seeks additional
liquidity. The price discovery mechanism also promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by taking into account whether all
interest can be fully executed, which helps investors by including as
much interest as possible in the Opening Process. The Exchange believes
that conducting the price discovery process in these situations
protects opening orders from receiving a random price that does not
reflect the totality of what is happening in the markets on the opening
and also further protects opening interest from receiving a potentially
erroneous execution price on the opening. Opening immediately has the
benefit of speed and certainty, but that benefit must be weighed
against the quality of the execution price and whether orders were left
unexecuted. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule strikes an
appropriate balance. Today, BX would start imbalance messages even
without a Valid Width NBBO. With the proposed amendments, BX would not
start the imbalance process unless a Valid Width NBBO was present.
    It is consistent with the Act to not consider away market
liquidity, i.e. away market volume, until the price discovery mechanism
occurs because this proposed process provides for a swift, yet
conservative opening. The Exchange is bounded by the Pre-Market BBO
when determining an Opening Price. The away market prices would be
considered, albeit not immediately. It is consistent with the Act to
consider interest on the Exchange prior to routing to an away market,
because the Exchange is utilizing the interest currently present on its
market to determine a quality Opening Price.\82\ The Exchange will
attempt to match interest in the System, which is within the OQR, and
not leave interest unsatisfied that was otherwise at that price. The
Exchange will not trade-through the away market interest in satisfying
this interest at the Exchange. The proposal attempts to maximize the
number of contracts that can trade, and is intended to find the most
reasonable and suitable price, relying on the maximization to reflect
the best price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Opening with a quote, pursuant to proposed Options 3,
Section 8(f), would not require consideration of away market quotes
because BX would have opened with a local quote that was not locked
or crossed with the away market, provided there are no opening
quotes or orders that lock or cross each other, and no routable
orders locking or crossing the ABBO. With respect to Opening with a
Trade, pursuant to Options 3, Section 8(i), the Exchange would not
consider away market interest if it could open immediately with a
trade, provided that the Exchange would never trade-through an away
market. If BX is locked and crossed with an away market, then the
Exchange would require additional price discovery, pursuant to
paragraphs (j) and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the manner in which the Exchange disseminates an
Imbalance Message, as proposed within BX Options 3, Section 8(k)(A),
the Imbalance Message is intended to attract additional liquidity, much
like an auction, using an auction message and timer. The Imbalance
Timer is consistent with the Act because it would provide a reasonable
time for participants to respond to the Imbalance Message before any
opening interest is routed to away markets and, thereby, maximize
trading on the Exchange. The Imbalance Timer would be for the same
number of seconds for all options traded on the Exchange. This process
will repeat, up to four iterations, until the options series opens. The
Exchange believes that this process is consistent with the Act because
the Exchange is seeking to identify a price on the Exchange without
routing away, yet which price may not trade through another market and
the quality of which is addressed by applying the OQR boundary.
    Proposed Options 3, Section 8(k)(3)(C)(i) provides if the total
number of better priced away contracts, plus the number of contracts
available at the Exchange Opening Price, plus the contracts available
at away markets at the Exchange Opening Price, would satisfy the number
of marketable contracts the Exchange has on either the buy or sell
side, the System will contemporaneously route a number of contracts
that will satisfy interest at away markets at prices better than the
Exchange Opening Price (pricing any contracts routed to away markets at
the better of the Exchange Opening Price or the order's limit price),
trade available contracts on the Exchange at the Exchange Opening
Price, and route a number of contracts that will satisfy interest at
other markets at prices equal to the Exchange Opening Price. This
provision is consistent with the Act because it considers routing to
away markets potentially both at a better price than the Exchange
Opening Price, as well as at the Exchange Opening Price, to access as
much liquidity as possible to maximize the number of contracts able to
be traded as part of the Opening Process. The Exchange routes at the
better of the Exchange's Opening Price or the order's limit price to
first ensure the order's limit price is not violated. Routing away at
the Exchange's Opening Price is intended to achieve the best possible
price available at the time the order is received by the away market.
    Proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(k)(3)(E), entitled ``Forced
Opening,'' provides for the situation where, as a last resort, the
Exchange may open an options series when the processes described above
have not resulted in an opening of the options series. Under a Forced
Opening, the System will open the series executing as many contracts as
possible by routing to away markets at prices better than the Exchange
Opening Price for their disseminated size, trading available contracts
on the Exchange at the Exchange Opening Price, bounded by OQR (without
trading through the limit price(s) of interest within OQR, which is
unable to be fully executed at the Opening Price). The System will also
route interest to away markets at prices equal to the Exchange Opening
Price at their disseminated size. In this situation, the System will
price any contracts routed to away markets at the better of the
Exchange Opening Price or the order's limit price. Any unexecuted
interest from the imbalance not traded or routed will be cancelled back
to the entering participant, if they remain unexecuted and priced
through the Opening Price, otherwise orders will remain in the Order
Book. The Exchange believes that this process is consistent with the
Act because after attempting to open by soliciting interest on BX and
considering other away market interest and considering interest
responding to Imbalance Messages, the Exchange could not otherwise
locate a fair and reasonable price with which to open options series.
    The Exchange's proposal to memorialize the manner in which

proposed rule will cancel and prioritize interest provides certainty to
market participants as to the priority scheme during the Opening
Process.\83\ The Exchange's proposal to execute Market Orders first and
then Limit Orders is consistent with the Act because these orders have
no specified price and Limit Orders will be executed, thereafter, in
accordance with the prices specified due to the nature of these order
types. This is consistent with the manner in which these orders execute
after the opening today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(j) and (k)(6)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(k)(7), which provides upon opening
of the option series, regardless of an execution, the System
dissemination of the price and size of the Exchange's BBO, is
consistent with the Act because it clarifies the manner in which the
Exchange establishes the BBO for purposes of reference upon opening.
    Proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(k)(8) accounts for remaining
contracts, which did not price through the Opening Price. These
contracts would post on the Order Book at the better of the away market
price or the order's limit price. Specifically, any remaining
contracts, which are not priced through the Exchange Opening Price
after routing a number of contracts to satisfy better priced away
contracts, will be posted to the Order Book at the better of the away
market price or the order's limit price. This includes DNR Orders that
are not crossed with the Opening Price. Only in the event that ABBO
interest, which the DNR Order would otherwise be crossing, has been
satisfied by routable interest during the Opening Process would DNR
Orders be included within the remaining contracts described in proposed
BX Options 3, Section 8(k)(8).\84\ This rule text accounts for orders
which have routed away and returned unsatisfied, and also accounts for
interest that remains unfilled during the Opening Process, provided
that interest was not priced through the Opening Price. The Exchange
believes that the proposed text in Options 3, Section 8(k)(8) is
consistent with the Act in that the Exchange is accounting for the
handling of all interest in the Opening Process with this rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ DNR Orders that are not crossed with the Opening Price rest
on the Order Book at the better of the ABBO price or the DNR Order's
limit order price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Process Cancel Timer
    The Exchange's proposal to retain its renamed ``Opening Process
Cancel Timer'' within proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(l), with rule
text modifications to conform the rule text similar to Phlx Options 3,
Section 8(l), is consistent with the Act. The cancel timer will
continue to provide Participants with the ability to elect to have
orders returned, except for non-GTC orders. This functionality provides
Participants with choice, when symbols do not open, about where, and
when, they can send orders for the opening that would afford them the
best experience.
Options 2, Section 4
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the rule text from Options 2,
Section 4(g) and permit BX to establish differences, other than noted
within proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(a)(9), for one or more series
or classes of options, similar to other Nasdaq affiliated
exchanges,\85\ is consistent with the Act. Today, BX Regulation takes
into account: (A) Whether there is pending news, a news announcement or
other special events; (B) whether the underlying security is trading
outside of the bid or offer in such security then being disseminated;
(C) whether Options Participants receive no response to orders placed
to buy or sell the underlying security; and (D) whether a vendor quote
feed is clearly stale or unreliable, in making such determinations
regarding quoting discretion. The Exchange believes that permitting BX
to have the same discretion as Phlx, ISE, GEMX and MRX will assist the
Exchange in making similar determinations to affected options series.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 2, Section 4(g) and instead
permit the Exchange to grant discretion based on proposed BX Options 3,
Section 8(a)(9) is consistent with the Act because such discretion
would permit the Exchange the ability to attract liquidity from Market
Makers, while also maintaining a fair and orderly market. Market Makers
accept a certain amount of risk when quoting on the Exchange. The
Exchange imposes quoting and other obligations on Market Makers.\86\
These risks, which Market Makers accept each trading day are calculated
risks. The Exchange considers certain factors, which are likely
unforeseen, in determining whether to grant relief, either in
individual options classes or for all option classes based upon
specific criteria. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to grant
quote relief in certain circumstances where a Market Maker may not have
enough information to maintain fair and orderly markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ ISE, GEMX and MRX Rules at Options 3, Section 8(a)(8), and
Phlx Rules at Options 3, Section 8(a)(ix), provide the same
discretionary language.
    \86\ See BX Options 2, Sections 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Definitions
    The Exchange's proposal to amend and alphabetize the current
definitions within Options 3, Section 8(a) does not impose a burden on
competition. The definitions will assist market participants in
understanding the meaning of terms used throughout the proposed Rule.
    Amending the definition of ``market for the underlying security''
within Options 3, Section 8(a)(ii) does not impose a burden on
competition. The Exchange's proposal offers alternative paths to open
BX in the event that the primary market or even a designated alternate
primary market experiences an issue. The Exchange's proposal is
intended to create additional certainty in the event that an issue with
the primary market arises. With this proposal, the Exchange would have
other equity markets to look to with respect to underlying prices on
which to open BX. This proposal also does not impact the ability of
other options markets to open.
Eligible Interest
    Defining what qualifies as eligible interest does not impose a
burden on competition because Participants will be provided with
certainty, when submitting interest, as to which type of interest will
be considered in the Opening Process. Unlike the regular session, where
orders route if they cannot execute on BX, the Opening Process is a
price discovery process which considers interest, both on BX and away
markets, to determine the optimal bid and offer with which to open the
market. The Opening Process seeks the price point at which the most
number of contracts may be executed while protecting away market
interest.
    The Exchange's proposal to define an ``Opening Sweep'' within BX
Options 3, Section 7(a)(9), similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(i),
does not impose a burden on competition. Removing the current order
type described as ``On the Open Order'' and instead adopting an
``Opening Sweep'' order type, similar to Phx at Options 3, Section
7(b)(6), will permit Market Makers to continue to submit orders during
the Opening Process for execution against eligible

interest in the System. Other market participants will continue to also
submit orders that enter with a TIF of ``OPG'' for the Opening Process.
    Likewise, replacing the current ``TIF'' of ``On the Open Order'' or
``OPG'' to an ``Opening Only'' or ``OPG'' TIF, which can only be
executed in the Opening Process, pursuant to Options 3, Section 8, and
is similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(6), does not burden
competition. This TIF is similar to Phlx, in that, any portion of the
order that is not executed during the Opening Process is cancelled.
This order type is not subject to any protections listed in Options 3,
Section 15.\87\ Participants will be able to continue to submit orders
to be entered into the Opening Process. The two orders types will
conform to Phlx's order types, which are relevant to the Opening
Process, with those of BX. These order types would continue to not be
valid outside of an Opening Process; they may not be submitted in the
regular trading session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Phlx Options 3, Section 7(c)(3) provides that an OPG Order
is not subject to any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15,
except for Automated Quotation Adjustments. Today, OPG Orders on
Phlx are not subject to any protections, including Automated
Quotation Adjustments protections. Phlx intends to file a rule
change to remove the rule text which provides, ``except for
Automated Quotation Adjustments,'' as OPG Orders are subject to that
risk protection. BX will not include the exception in the proposed
rule text. OPG Orders are handled in the same manner by the Phlx
System today and the BX System, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to trade allocation, the proposal notes at proposed BX
Options 3, Section 8(b)(2) that the System will allocate pursuant to BX
Options 3, Section 10. The Exchange believes that this allocation does
not impose a burden on competition because it mirrors the current
allocation process on BX in other trading sessions.
    Permitting the Opening Process for an option series to be conducted
on or after 9:30 a.m., when the System has received an opening trade or
quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity
options or in the case of index options \88\ does not impose a burden
on competition because this requirement will tie the option Opening
Process to receipt of liquidity. The Exchange's proposed rule considers
the liquidity present on its market before initiating other processes
to obtain additional pricing information. Today, BX, unlike Phlx, does
not require its Lead Market Makers to submit Valid Width Quotes. BX is
not proposing to adopt the same quoting requirements during the Opening
Process that exist on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to Phlx Options 3, Section 8(d)(v), proposed BX Options 3,
Section 8(d)(3) provides that the Opening Process will stop and an
option series will not open if the ABBO becomes crossed. This proposal
does not impose a burden on competition. Once this condition no longer
exists, the Opening Process in the affected option series will start
again pursuant to paragraphs (f)-(k) below. Unlike Phlx Options 3,
Section 8(d)(v),\89\ BX will not consider if a Valid Width Quote(s) is
no longer present. Unlike Phlx, BX does not require its Lead Market
Makers to quote in the Opening Process. This requirement is not
necessary for BX as BX's market would open with a BBO, pursuant to
Options 3, Section 8(f), unless the ABBO becomes crossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Phlx Options 3, Section 8(d)(v) provides, ``The Opening
Process will stop and an option series will not open if the ABBO
becomes crossed or when a Valid Width Quote(s) pursuant to paragraph
(d)(i) is no longer present. Once each of these conditions no longer
exist, the Opening Process in the affected option series will start
again pursuant to paragraphs (f)-(k) below.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add rule text within proposed Options 3,
Section 8(d)(4) to make clear that the Exchange would not open with a
trade, pursuant to paragraph (i)(2), if a Valid Width NBBO does not
impose an undue burden on competition. Today, BX would not open with a
trade unless there is a Valid Width NBBO present. This would remain the
case with this proposal. The addition of this rule text provides market
participants with an expectation of the circumstances under which the
Exchange would open an option series.
Reopening After a Trading Halt
    Proposed BX Options 3, Section 8(e) provides if there is a trading
halt or pause in the underlying security, the Opening Process will
start again irrespective of the specific times listed in paragraph (d).
The Exchange's proposal to restart in the event of a trading halt does
not impose a burden on competition because the proposed rule ensures
that there is stability in the marketplace in order to assist the
Exchange in determining the Opening Price.
Opening With a BBO
    The Exchange's proposal to validate the Opening Price against away
markets or by attracting additional interest to address the specific
condition does not impose a burden on competition. It should avoid
opening executions in very wide or unusual markets where an opening
execution price cannot be validated.
Further Opening Processes and Price Discovery Mechanism
    The proposed rule continues to consider the maximum number of
contracts that can be executed, which results in a price that is
logical and reasonable in light of away markets and other interest
present in the System. The Exchange's method seeks to validate the
Opening Price and avoid opening at aberrant prices does not impose a
burden on competition. The Opening Price would be applied to all
eligible interest.
Options 2, Section 4
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the rule text from Options 2,
Section 4(g) and permit BX to establish differences as noted within
proposed Options 3, Section 8(a)(9), for one or more series or classes
of options, similar to other Nasdaq Affiliated Exchanges,\90\ does not
create a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ ISE, GEMX and MRX Rules at Options 3, Section 8(a)(8)
provides the same discretionary language as exists on Phlx today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed amendments do not create a burden on inter-
market competition because other options markets have the same intra-
day requirements.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2020-016 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-BX-2020-016. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2020-016 and should be submitted on
or before August 17, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16165 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59633-59634]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0314]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Recall Regulations

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All comments
should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0249. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

FDA Recall Regulations--21 CFR Part 7--(OMB Control Number 0910-0249--
Extension)

    Section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
371) and part 7, subpart C (21 CFR part 7, subpart C), set forth the
recall regulations (guidelines) and provide guidance to manufacturers
on recall responsibilities. The guidelines apply to all FDA regulated
products (i.e., food, including animal feed; drugs, including animal
drugs; medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic products;
cosmetics; and biological products intended for human use). These
responsibilities include: (1) developing a recall strategy that
requires time by the firm to determine the actions or procedures
required to manage the recall (Sec.  7.42); (2) providing FDA with
complete details of the recall including reason(s) for the removal or
correction, risk evaluation, quantity produced, distribution
information, firm's recall strategy, a copy of any recall
communication(s), and a contact official (Sec.  7.46); (3) notifying
direct accounts of the recall, providing guidance regarding further
distribution, giving instructions as to what to do with the product,
providing recipients with a ready means of reporting to the recalling
firm (Sec.  7.49); (4) submitting periodic status reports so that FDA
may assess the progress of the recall (status report information may be
determined by, among other things, evaluation return reply cards,
effectiveness checks, and product returns) (Sec.  7.53); and (5)
providing the opportunity for a firm to request in writing that FDA
terminate the recall (Sec.  7.55).
    A search of the FDA database was performed to determine the number
of recalls that took place during fiscal year 2007. The resulting
number of recalls from this database search (2,166) is used in
estimating the current annual reporting burden for this report. FDA

estimates the total annual industry burden to collect and provide the
previous information to 216,600 burden hours.
    Table 1 of this document is a summary of the estimated annual
burden hours for recalling firms (manufacturers, processors, and
distributors) to comply with the voluntary reporting requirements of
FDA's recall regulations.
    In the Federal Register of June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31696), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.
    Recognizing that there may be a vast difference in the information
collection and reporting time involved in different recalls of FDA's
regulated products, FDA estimates on average the burden of collection
for recall information to be as follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
21 CFR Section     Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall                      2,166                     1              2,166                 20             43,320
 strategy 7.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm initiated              2,166                     1              2,166                 30             64,980
 recall and
 recall
 communication
 s 7.46 and
 7.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall status               2,166                     4              8,664                 10             86,640
 reports and
 followup 7.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of              2,166                     1              2,166                 10             21,660
 a recall
 7.55(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                216,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The annual reporting burdens are explained as follows:

Reporting

A. Recall Strategy

    Request firms develop a recall strategy including provision for
public warnings and effectiveness checks. Under this portion of the
collection of information, the agency estimates it will receive 2,166
responses annually.

B. Firm Initiated Recall and Recall Communications

    Request firms voluntarily remove or correct foods and drugs (human
or animal), cosmetics, medical devices, and biologicals to immediately
notify the appropriate FDA district office of such actions. The firm is
to provide complete details of the recall reason, risk evaluation,
quantity produced, distribution information, firms' recall strategy and
a contact official as well as requires firms to notify their direct
accounts of the recall and to provide recipients with a ready means of
reporting to the recalling firm. Under these portions of the collection
of information, the agency estimates it will receive 2,166 responses
annually for each.

C. Recall Status Reports

    Request that recalling firms provide periodic status reports so FDA
can ascertain the progress of the recall. This collection of
information will generate approximately 8,664 responses annually.

D. Termination of a Recall

    Provide the firms an opportunity to request in writing that FDA end
the recall. The agency estimates it will receive 2,166 responses
annually.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-23910 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2856-2857]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40

CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Presenter or
           Docket No.                  File date           requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-554-000.............          12-28-2015  William Long.
    2. CP-15-554-000............          12-28-2015  Bobby Albrite.
    3. CP15-554-000.............          12-28-2015  James Lee.
    4. CP16-21-000..............            1-4-2016  Peter Stasiowski.
    5. EL15-623-000, EL15-29-               1-5-2016  FERC Staff.\1\
     000, EL15-70-000, EL15-71-
     000, EL15-72-000, EL15-82-
     000.
    6. CP16-21-000..............            1-5-2016  Christine Dudley-
                                                       Marling.
    7. CP15-520-000.............            1-8-2016  FERC Staff.\2\
Exempt:
    1. CP15-558-000.............          12-28-2015  Delaware Township,
                                                       New Jersey
                                                       Municipal Clerk
                                                       Judith Allen.
    2. CP15-558-000.............          12-28-2015  Township of
                                                       Hopewell, New
                                                       Jersey Mayor
                                                       Harvey Lester.
    3. CP16-21-000..............            1-4-2016  U.S. House
                                                       Representative
                                                       Paul D. Tonko.
    4. CP16-21-000..............            1-4-2016  State of
                                                       Massachusetts
                                                       Senate President
                                                       Stan Rosenberg.
    5. CP16-9-000...............            1-4-2016  U.S. House
                                                       Representative
                                                       Stephen F. Lynch.
    6. CP16-21-000..............            1-5-2016  U.S. Senator
                                                       Kirsten
                                                       Gillibrand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo forwarding post conference notes and transcript for PJM
  Interconnection, LLM Capacity Performance filing.
\2\ Meeting Summary from January 8, 2016 conference call with Shannon
  Miller and Jacqueline Rocan of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00817 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement

for

Vessel Documentation

OMB No.: 1625-0027

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS: CG-1258, CG-1261, CG-1270, CG-1280,

CG-1340, CG-1356, CG-4593, CG-5542, CG-7042, CG-7043 and Instruction

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances making collection of information necessary.

Federal documentation is a type of national registration which serves to
establish a vessel’s: (a) nationality; (b) eligibility to engage in a
particular employment; and (c) eligibility to become the object of a
preferred ship’s mortgage.  In the field of international commerce,
documentation establishes the nationality of a vessel and confers the
privileges, protections, and immunities contemplated by longstanding
international law and custom.  The availability of capital for maritime
financing hinges upon the existence of the preferred mortgage as
security for loans against vessels.  The collection and recordkeeping of
information concerning the documentation of vessels is promulgated in
the Shipping Act of 1916, as amended, section 27 of the Merchant Marine
Act of 1920, as amended, (Jones Act), 46 U.S.C. Chapters 121, 123, 125,
and 313.

This information collection ensures compliance with vessel documentation
regulations (46 CFR parts 67 & 68) by including the lease finance
options as reflected in the amendments provided by Congress under the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293).
These regulations address statutory amendments eliminating certain
barriers to seeking foreign financing by lease for U.S.-flag vessels.
They clarify the information needed to determine the eligibility of a
vessel financed in this manner for a coastwise endorsement.  The
National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC) performs the vessel
documentation functions for the Federal Government.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Coast Guard

Mobility

Prevention Policy Directorate (CG-5P)

Economic Growth and Trade/Mobility:  Reduce interruptions and
impediments that restrict the economical movement of goods and people,
while maximizing safe, effective, and efficient waterways for all users.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

The information collected will establish the eligibility of a vessel to:
(a) be documented as a “vessel of the United States;” (b) engage in
a particular trade; and/or (c) become the object of a preferred ship’s
mortgage.  These determinations will be made by a documentation officer
of the United States Coast Guard or other authorized Coast Guard
officials by comparing the information collected with the various
statutory requirements imposed by the Shipping Act of 1916, as amended,
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, as amended, (Jones Act),
46 U.S.C. Chapters 121, 123, 125, and 313.  The information requested is
needed to make the above-mentioned determinations, without which a
vessel would be denied eligibility for benefits as listed. Also,
non-maritime agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service rely on this
information in determining eligibility for investment tax credits and
the like.

This information collection determines if the entities that desire to
avail themselves of the lease finance provisions are eligible for a
coastwise endorsement in accordance with the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293) statutory amendments.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved technology.

Information may be submitted by mail, fax or electronically submitted
via e-mail to the NVDC, depending on the type of documentation action
needed.  Details on e-mail & fax submissions are at—   HYPERLINK
"http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvdc/nvdcpdf.asp"
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvdc/nvdcpdf.asp .  Forms are available at—
  HYPERLINK "http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvdc/nvdcforms.asp"
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvdc/nvdcforms.asp .  We estimate that at
this time 59% of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements are done
electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

There are no other Federal agencies with similar programs.  Other
agencies involved in maritime affairs (i.e., Maritime Administration
(MARAD)) collect no similar information and in many cases must rely upon
the information collected in connection with the documentation of
vessels.  There is no similar information available that could be used
or modified for these purposes.

5.  Methods to minimize the burden to small entities if involved.

The information collection will involve some small organizations,
including small businesses, individuals, non-profit organizations,
municipal governments, small shipbuilders, boat dealers, and lending
institutions.  Due to various statutory requirements imposed by the
Shipping Act of 1916, as amended, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act
of 1920, as amended, (Jones Act), 46 U.S.C. Chapters 121, 123, 125, and
313, the minimum number of requirements and the collection of
information is consonant with the current statutes, the possibility of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small
entities is precluded.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

The frequency of submission of information is the minimum consistent
with the maintenance of internal records and enforcement of substantive
laws in effect.  Presently, the regulations clearly mandate the
frequency of use, and changing the requirements would make the
regulations less effective.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality of information.

The information collected is generally not of a type considered
confidential by those supplying it.  However, those forms requiring
confidential information have a “Privacy Act” statement on them.
The respondent furnishes any confidential information on a voluntary
basis for benefits.  Information related to this collection is
maintained in the Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database.  MISLE is covered by a System of Records
Notice (SORN).

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The estimated annual number of respondents is 213,428.

The estimated annual number of responses is 577,821.

The estimated annual hour burden is 77,619.

The estimated annual cost burden is $4,113,807.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  We estimate that
the time to complete various documentation-related forms vary from about
5 to 30 minutes and that an owner/operator/agent will complete the form
(see table below).  The position of an owner/operator/agent is
equivalent to a GS-09.  The wage rate used is in accordance with the
current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “Out-Government”
personnel.

Form Number / Name	Burden per Form

CG-1258 // Application for Initial, Exchange, or Replacement of
Certificate of Documentation; Redocumentation with optional  attachments
30 min. (0.5 hrs)

CG-1261 // Builder's Certification and First Transfer of Title	30 min.
(0.5 hrs.)

CG-1270 // Certificate of Documentation	3 min. (0.05 hrs)

CG-1280 // Vessel Renewal Notification Application for Renewal	5 min.
(0.084 hrs.)

CG-1340 // Bill of Sale	20 min (0.334 hrs.)

CG-1356 // Bill of Sale by Government Entity Pursuant to Court Order of
Administrative Degree of Forfeiture	20 min (0.334 hrs.)

CG-4593 // Application, Consent, and Approval for Withdrawal of
Application for Documentation or Exchange of Certificate of
Documentation	10 min. (0.167 hrs.)

CG-5542 // Optional Application for Filing	10 min. (0.167 hrs.)

CG-7042 // Authorization for Credit Card Transaction	5 min. (0.084 hrs.)

CG-7043 // Abstract of Title / Certified COD Request	5 min. (0.084 hrs.)

13.  Estimate of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimate of annualized Federal Government costs.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $12,181,843 (see
Appendix B).  The Coast Guard vessel documentation program costs include
both staffing and non-staffing costs.  Non-staffing costs include
operating, building rental, IT system and postage costs.

15.  Explain the reasons for change in burden.

The change in the burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e.,
increase) in the estimated annual number of responses.  With one
exception, there is no proposed change to the reporting or recordkeeping
requirements of this collection.  This ICR is revised to account for the
recordkeeping burden of form CG-1270 (Certificate of Documentation
(COD)).  A COD is issued by the Coast Guard to a vessel owner.  We
estimate the recordkeeping burden of 3 minutes per response.  CODs were
issued in the past, but not accounted for under 1625-0027.  The
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the methodology for
calculating burden, remain unchanged.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18.  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  See DHS/USCG-013 - Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
(MISLE), June 25, 2009 74 FR 30305 at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.dhs.gov/system-records-notices-sorns"
http://www.dhs.gov/system-records-notices-sorns

  This figure is based upon the total number of documented vessel owners
in the United States Coast Guard’s Marine Information Safety and Law
Enforcement (MISLE) database.

  This figure is based upon the total number of vessel documentation
forms submitted to the NVDC, plus the number of Certificates of
Documentation issued by the NVDC.  .

1625-0027

  PAGE  4  of   NUMPAGES  4


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22617]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Federal Aviation Administration

Permanent Closure of the Public-Use of East Hampton Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of closure of the public-use of East Hampton Airport
(HTO).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA received written notice on January 20, 2022 from the
Town of East Hampton, followed by an amended request on February 17,
2022, advising that effective May 17, 2022, the Town will be closing
the public-use East Hampton Airport (HTO), East Hampton, New York.

DATES: The closure of the public-use airport is effective as of May 17,
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mahendra Raghubeer, Manager, Safety
and Standards Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation
Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HTO is a general aviation airport in the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The Town of East
Hampton has owned and operated HTO for several decades. HTO previously
received federal grants-in-aid for airport development and was subject
to statutory grant assurances, but the Town is no longer contractually
obligated to continue operating HTO as a public use airport. On January
20, 2022, and amended on February 17, 2020, the Town of East Hampton
notified the FAA that it seeks to deactivate HTO on May 17, 2022 as a
public-use airport and activate a new private-use airport, at the same
location, on May 19, 2022. Section 46319 of title 49 of the United
States Code (49 U.S.C. 46319) provides that a public agency (as defined
in 49 U.S.C. 47102) may not permanently close an airport in the NPIAS
without providing written notice to the FAA Administrator at least 30
days before the date of the closure. In this case, the public-use
airport will be closed. The FAA recognizes the correspondence received
on January 20, 2022 from the Town of East Hampton, followed by the
amended request on February 17, 2022, meets that requirement. The FAA
is publishing the Town of East Hampton's notice to close the public-use
of HTO in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46319(b).

    Issued in Jamaica, New York on April 11, 2022.
David A. Fish,
Director, Eastern Region Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-08059 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


What's New?

How much is the PBT Profiler being used? The PBT Profiler now counts user "hits" on the Home Page andthe numberofprofiles run. Details.

Known Issues (bugs or other problems)

  None Version History 4/ 12/ 2001 Version 0. 911   Methodology section expanded   Text on numerous pages updated to reflect newest version   Routines to URL encode SMILES string for structure display added   Bug that shows B& W/ color switch during metal flag fixxed   Routines to add brackets to the SMILES string of Na and K salts added so that userentered salts display properly added 10/ 11/ 2000 Version 0. 910   Method to determine persistence updated. The persistence ranking was modified to compare the half life in the medium (environmental compartment) a chemical was most likely to be found in (water, soil or sediment) to the PBT Profiler criteria. The mult ipliers used to determine the half life in soil and sediment (relative to that estimated in water by the ultimate survey model ) were updated.   Results page reformatted.   Characteristic Travel Distance (CTD) added to Results page.   Overall persistence from fugacity model added to Results page.   Picture of the user entered chemical structure added to Data Entry and Results page.   Routines to view a structure based on a user entered SMILES (before the chemical is added to the list) added.   Black and white version of the Data Entry and Results pages added; descriptions and format added to Definitions and Interpreting the PBT Profiler Results pages.   The P2 Considerations page was expanded and reformatted. This page now includes a discussion of the CTD, provides information on different release scenarios, and contains separate partitioning and transport sections.   Bug that didn't transfer user entered CAS from drawing program fixed.   Methodology, Definition, and Interpreting the PBT Profiler Results pages expanded to include a discussion of changes and additions identified here.   Routines to identify common inorganic chemicals in the lookup database (and preventthem from beingrunin the Profiler) were added.   Discussion of chemical classes that should not be profiled was expanded to include surfactants.   Discussion of how the PBT Profiler does not explicitly consider groundwater expanded on the P2 Considerations and Methodology pages.

4/ 25/ 2000 Version 0. 902   Methodology and criteria sections expanded and rewritten.   A multiple chemical profile bug that caused the no effects at saturation flag to be displayed incorrectly was fixed.

3/ 27/ 2000 Version 0. 901   Routines added to count the number of "hits" onthe Home Page andthe number of profiles run. Users can view how often the PBT Profiler is used and the computer code used to collect this information.   Results page routines expanded to keep the PBT Profiler working when the estimation methods give erratic results.   Discussions why the persistence, bioaccumulation, or toxicity can not be estimated were expanded (P2 considerations).   Bug in displaying the colored arrows fixed (Data Entry)   Fix for updating chemical name added (Data Entry)

3/ 08/ 2000 Estimation routines and chemical details page updated to identify chemicals that exceed the log octanol/ water partition coefficient cutoff for the aquatic toxicit y SARs.

3/ 06/ 2000 Version 0. 900 released for testing This version incorporates suggestions from the Betatesters as wellas othersignificant enhancements:

  Website redesigned to facilitate navigation between all pages and keep the current profile active   Pollution Prevention Considerations page added to add chemical specific perspective to the PBT Profiler results. This discussion considers both a chemical's half life and the environmental compartment it is found in to identify P2 opportunit ies   Home Page redesigned and informational pages including a how to use the PBT Profiler, how to interpret the results, and information needed added   Data Entry screen redesigned and reprogrammed to guide the user through the process   Overall Persistence (from the fugacity model) removed from the results page as this value provided a relative, not an absolute, persistence   Chemical drawing interface (experimental) added to facilitatestructure entry   Notes on how the PBT Profiler uses data entered   Data Entry Help expanded to provide information on thelookupfunction, SMILES notations, and ID numbers   Example chemical page added to help users familiarize themselves with the PBT Profiler   Methodology page expanded to include validation section   Algorithm for identifying metals in userentered SMILES added to data entry page   PBT Profiler completely reprogrammed to remove the java based object oriented scripting language that was not functioning correctly on some local area networks.   Routines for flagging known PBTs at data entry added 11/ 1/ 99 The first developmental version of the PBT Profiler, Version 0.88, Released for Beta Testing to volunteers in academics, industry, and government. Beta test coordinated by Ihab H. Farag, Sc. D., P. E., Robert C. Davison Professor, University of New Hampshire. Director, The New Hampshire Pollut ion Prevention Partnership Developed by the Environmental Science Center under contract to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Computer Resources Donated by Syracuse Research Corporation Ver 0. 911 BetaR Restricted Access Last Updated April 18, 2001


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23909-23910]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-216-001]

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Compliance
Filing

April 18, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 10, 2006, Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective on March 9, 2006:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4B.
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 50B.
Original Sheet No. 50C.
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 66A.
Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 67.

    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and
all parties to the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6176 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Purpose:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This checklist has been prepared by EPA staff to use in reviewing regional haze SIPs to ensure that the SIPs have the necessary components.  The checklist represents our best efforts to summarize the requirements of the regional haze rule but it is not a regulation and does not change or substitute for any legal requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the regional haze rule.  Any decisions regarding the completeness of a particular SIP will be made based on the CAA and the relevant regulations.  Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections to the checklist and its use in a particular situation.

Acronyms and Terms:

BART is Best Available Retrofit Technology

CAA is the Clean Air Act

CAIR is Clean Air Interstate Rule

EI is Emissions Inventory

FLM is Federal Land Manager

Glidepath is the linear rate of improvement sufficient to attain natural conditions by 2064

LTS is Long Term Strategy

RAVI is Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment

RHR is the Regional Haze Rule

RPO is Regional Planning Organization

RPG is Reasonable Progress Goal

Notes:

1.	This checklist is based on Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51, and 40 CFR 51.308, as updated by the BART Rule (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005), and the trading rule, as proposed in 70 FR 44154, August 1, 2005.  This checklist will be revised if necessary, should that be necessitated by the final version of the trading rule.

2.	All boxes should either be “Y” or “N/A” or the SIP may be deficient.

3.	This checklist assumes the State will not be participating in a trading program, or other alternative measure to BART.  If this is not the case, then additional/alternative regulations that appear in 51.308(e)(2) and (3) apply.

4.	Only the requirements from 51.308 pertaining to the current RH SIP submission, and not those pertaining to future revisions and/or reports required under 51.308(f), (g), and (h) (except for a SIP commitment to do them), were included.

5.	The “1999 RHR” is 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.

The “2005 BART Rule” is 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005.

The “BART Guidelines” is Appendix Y to Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005.

The “Tracking Guidance” is the Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-004, September, 2003.

The “Attainment Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for PM2.5 and Regional Haze, January 2, 2001.

The “Natural Visibility Guidance” is the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.

The “Baseline Memo” is a memo, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs, dated 11/18/2002, from Lydia Wegman to the Regional Air Directors.

The “draft RPG Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, dated November 28, 2005.

The “Visibility Monitoring Guidance” is Visibility Monitoring Guidance, EPA-454/R-99-003, June 1999.

The “EI Guidance” is the Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, dated August, 2005.

The “Interim Fire Policy” is the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, April 23, 1998.

*	Requirements that do not apply to States without Class I areas are denoted by an asterisk.

Y / N or N/A

SIP Submittal Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308

Regulation Citation	Regulation Summary (not verbatim)	Location

in SIP	References

Administrative Requirements from Appendix V to Part 51

Y

2.1(a)	Has a letter of submittal from the governor / designee, requesting EPA approval of the SIP been received?	Cover letter w/ attachment

	Y

2.1(b)	Has the State provided evidence it has adopted the legally enforceable portions of the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the necessary permits, orders, consent agreements in final form?	Subsection 11.10

	Y

2.1(c)	Has the State provided evidence it has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan?	Subsection 11.10

	Y

2.1(d)	Has the official State regulation /document been signed/stamped/dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State?	Cover letter w/ attachment

	Y

2.1(e)	Has the State provided evidence it followed all of the procedural requirements of the State’s laws and constitution in the adoption/issuance of the plan?	Cover letter w/ attachment

	2.1(f)	Has the State provided evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice?	(near future)

	2.1(g)	Has the State provided a certification that public hearings(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State’s laws and constitution, if applicable?	(near future)

	2.1(h)	Has the State provided a compilation of public comments and the State’s response thereto?	(Compilation will follow.)

	Technical  Requirements from 40 CFR 51.308

N

(b)	Was the SIP submitted no later than December 17, 2007?	SIP was submitted on January 30, 2009

	Y

(d)	Did the State provide a table identifying each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State affected by emissions from within the State?	Subsection 2.1,   Table 2.1	 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

NA	*	(d)(1)	Did the State establish RPGs for each Class I area that provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period?

 p. 35730 of the 1999 RHR

 p. 1-6 of the Tracking Guidance

 Attainment Guidance

 draft RPG Guidance

NA	*	(d)(1)(i)(A)	In establishing RPGs for each Class I area, did the State consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal?

 p. 35731-33 of the 1999 RHR

 draft RPG Guidance

NA	*	(d)(1)(i)(B)	Did the State submit the glidepath (i.e., rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064) for each Class I area?

 p. 35727-33, 35 of the 1999 RHR

 Natural Visibility Guidance

 p. 39124, 39143 of the 2005 BART rule

The Baseline Memo

NA	*	(d)(1)(i)(B)	In establishing the RPG for each Class I area, did the State calculate the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the SIP?

 p. 35732 of the 1999 RHR

 draft RPG Guidance

NA	*	(d)(1)(ii)	If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, has it demonstrated, based on the factors in (d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable?

 p. 35732 of the 1999 RHR

NA	*	(d)(1)(ii)	If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, did it provide to the public for review as part of its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions using its RPG?

 p. 35732 of the 1999 RHR

NA

(d)(1)(iv)	In developing its RPG, has the State consulted with those States that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas?

 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

NA

(d)(1)(iv)	If the State cannot agree with another State(s) that a goal provides for reasonable progress, has the State described in its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement?	Section 3	 p. 35732 of the 1999 RHR

NA	*	(d)(1)(vi)	Has the State adopted RPGs that represents at least the visibility improvement expected from implementation of other CAA programs during the applicable planning period?

 p. 35733 of the 1999 RHR

NA	*	(d)(2)(i)	Has the State calculated baseline visibility conditions for each Class I area for the most impaired and least impaired days using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data?

 p. 35728-30 of the 1999 RHR

 Natural Visibility Guidance

 Attainment Guidance

Tracking Guidance

NA	*	(d)(2)(i)	In calculating the baseline visibility conditions, did the State estimate the average degree of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004, and then determine the average of these annual values?

NA	*	(d)(2)(i)	If the State has Class I areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000 - 2004, did the State use the most representative available monitoring data for 2000 - 2004 to establish baseline values, in consultation with the EPA Regional Office?

 p. 35728-29 of the 1999 RHR

 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

NA	*	(d)(2)(iii)	Did the State calculate natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days by estimating the degree of impairment based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques?

 p. 35764, 35729-30 of the 1999 RHR

 Natural Visibility Guidance

NA	*	(d)(2)(iv)A	Did the State calculate the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days for the first planning period?

 p. 35732 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)	Did the State submit a LTS that addresses visibility impairment for each Class I area, inside and outside the State, which may be affected by the State’s emissions?	Section 11.0	 p. 35734-35 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)	Does the LTS include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by States having Class I areas?	Subsection 11.10 	 p. 35734-35 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(i)	In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to develop coordinated emission management strategies for cases in which it has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in those State(s)? Section 3.0	 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(i)	In establishing its LTS, did the State consult with other State(s) to develop coordinated emission management strategies for cases in which those State(s) have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located within the State?	Section 3.0

	Y

(d)(3)(ii)	In establishing its LTS, where multiple State(s) cause or contribute to impairment of the same Class I area, did the State include all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPG for the area?	Subsection 11.9	 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(ii)	In addressing (d)(3)(ii), above, if the State participated in a RPO, did it ensure it included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process?	Subsection 11.9	 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(iii)	In establishing its LTS, did the State document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each Class I area it affects?	Subsections 11.1 and 11.2	 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

 EI Guidance

Y

(d)(3)(iii)	In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the State identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based? Subsection 6.1,  Part 6.1.1 and Subsections 11.1 and 11.2	 p. 35728 of the 1999 RHR

 Baseline Memo

EI Guidance

Y

(d)(3)(iv)	Did the State identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by it in developing its LTS, including consideration of major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources?	Section 8.0	 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR

 EI Guidance

Y

(d)(3)(v)(A)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider the emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI?	Subsection 11.3	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(v)(B)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities?	Subsection 11.6	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(v)(C)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal?	Subsection 11.10	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(v)(D)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider source retirement and replacement schedules?	Subsection 11.5	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(v)(E)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes, including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes? Subsection 11.7	 p. 35736 of the 1999 RHR

 Interim Fire Policy

Y

(d)(3)(v)(F)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures?	Subsection 11.8	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(d)(3)(v)(G)	In developing its LTS, did the State consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS? Section 11.8	 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR

NA	*	(d)(4)	Did the State submit with the SIP a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment representative of all Class I areas within the State?

 p. 35744 of the 1999 RHR

 Attainment Guidance

 Tracking Guidance

Visibility Monitoring Guidance

NA	*	(d)(4)	Did the State coordinate the above monitoring strategy with the RAVI monitoring strategy in § 51.305?

 p. 35717, 37,  of the 1999 RHR

NA	*	(d)(4)(i)	Did the SIP provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all Class I areas within the State are being achieved?

 p. 35744 of the 1999 RHR

  Attainment Guidance

 Tracking Guidance

Visibility Monitoring Guidance

NA	*	(d)(4)(ii)	Did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State?

 p. 35744 of the 1999 RHR

 Attainment Guidance

 Tracking Guidance

 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

Y

(d)(4)(iii)	For a State with no Class I areas, did the SIP establish procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States? Section 5	 p. 35744 of the 1999 RHR

 Attainment Guidance

 Tracking Guidance

 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

NA	*	(d)(4)(iv)	Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each Class I area in the State?

 p. 35744-45 of the 1999 RHR

 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

Y

(d)(4)(v)	Did the SIP include a statewide EI of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area?	Section 6.0 and Subsection 8.2	 Attainment Guidance

Y

(d)(4)(v)	Did the EI include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions?	Section 6.0 (The 2002 EI data represent both the baseline year and the most recent year for which reliable data a	 p. 35728-29 of the 1999 RHR

 Visibility Monitoring Guidance

Attainment Guidance

(d)(4)(v)	Did the SIP include a commitment to update the EI periodically?	Subsection 1.3,   Part 1.3.2	 EI Guidance

(d)(4)(vi)	Did the SIP include other elements necessary to assess and report on visibility (e.g., reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)?	Subsection 5.2

	NA

(e)	Did the State submit a SIP containing emission limitations representing BART, and schedules for compliance with BART, for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area?

 BART Guidelines

NA

(e)(1)(i)	Did the SIP include a list of all BART-eligible sources within the State with supporting documentation?

 BART Guidelines

NA

(e)(1)(ii)	Did the SIP include a determination of BART for each BART-eligible source in the State that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area?

 BART Guidelines

NA

(e)(1)(ii)(A)	Did the SIP include a determination of BART based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available, and associated emission reductions achievable for each source subject to BART within the State?

 BART Guidelines

NA

(e)(1)(ii)(A)	In the BART analysis, did the State take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology?

 BART Guidelines

 p 39107, 127 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(1)(ii)(B)	Did the State determine BART for fossil-fuel fired power plants > 750 megawatts pursuant to the BART guidelines?

 BART Guidelines

 p 39108 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(1)(iii)	If the State has determined that technological or economic limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, has the State prescribed a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, to require the application of BART, as an alternative to a BART emission standard?

 BART Guidelines

NA

(e)(1)(iii)	If the State adopted a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard alternative to BART, did the State, to the degree possible, set forth the emission reduction to be achieved, and provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results?

 BART Guidelines

 p 39172 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(1)(iv)	Has the State required each source subject to BART to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after approval of the SIP?

 p 39158, 70, 72 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(1)(v)	Has the State required each BART source to maintain the required control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained?

 p 39172 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(4)	If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, has it included supporting documentation?

 p 39136-42 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(4)	If the State is using its participation in CAIR to exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, did it include provisions for a geographic enhancement to the program to address RAVI BART under § 51.302(c)?

 p 39143, 57 of the 2005 BART Rule

NA

(e)(6)	If a facility is seeking an exemption under §51.303(a)(2)–(h) for any of its BART-eligible emission units, has the appropriate documentation been included in the SIP?

 §51.303(a)(2)–(h)

Y

(f)	Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(f), by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter?	Subsection 1.3,    Part 1.3.2	p 35745 of the 1999 RHR

 Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA

Y

(g)	Has the State included a commitment it will submit its SIP report, as specified in 51.308(g), by an exact date named, that is within 5 years from submittal of the initial SIP?	Subsection 1.3,    Part 1.3.2	p 35745 of the 1999 RHR

 Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA

Y

(h)	Has the State included a commitment it will, at the time of the submission of the SIP report, also submit a determination of the adequacy of its existing Regional Haze SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(h)?	Subsection 1.3,    Part 1.3.2	p 35745 of the 1999 RHR

 Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA

N

(i)(1)(i)-(ii)	Did the State, by November 29, 1999, identify in writing to the FLMs the title of the official to which any FLM can submit recommendations on the implementation 51.308 including, (i) identification of impairment of visibility in any Class I area(s); and (ii) identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by §51.305 and 51.308?

 p. 35747-48 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(i)(2)	Did the State provide the FLM an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP (or its revision)?	Subsection 3.2,    Part 3.2.3	 p. 35747-48 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(i)(2)(i)-(ii)	Did the above consultation include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their: (i) assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area; and, (ii) recommendations on the development of the RPG and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment?	Subsection 3.2,    Part 3.2.3	 p. 35747-48 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(i)(3)	Did the State include in the SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs?	(Response will follow.)	 p. 35747-48 of the 1999 RHR

Y

(i)(4)	Does the SIP provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas?	Subsection 3.2,    Part 3.2.3	 p. 35747-48 of the 1999 RHR

 PAGE   12

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308

8/4/06

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   14

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308

8/04/06