Memorandum
Subject: 	Technical Support Document: Information to Support New Source                         			Performance Standards Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
From:		Ms. Janice Godfrey, Policy and Strategies Group, OAQPS/SPPD
To:		New Source Performance Standards Project Docket
Date: 		July 6, 2011

INTRODUCTION
	This technical support document (TSD) provides additional information to accompany the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (add citation when available) which requests public comment on EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Management Strategy. The intent of the NSPS Management Strategy is to comply with EPA's statutory requirement to review and revise NSPS while focusing attention on those NSPS that have the potential for significant net positive environmental benefits. One of the strategies to achieve this goal is to prioritize the evaluation of NSPS which will result in net environmental benefits by identifying NSPS that remain effective, and thus do not need to be reviewed.
	The ANPR identifies three criteria which EPA believes are appropriate for consideration in making a determination that a review of an existing NSPS would not result in any environmental benefit. These criteria are discussed in more detail in the ANPR, but may be summarized as follows:
      1) The application of the best system of emission reduction from the current NSPS remains appropriate. (e.g., review of the NSPS would not result in a more stringent emissions limit through technology improvements.)
      2) There is no anticipated applicability of the NSPS during the current review cycle. (e.g., no anticipated new, modified, or reconstructed sources are expected to trigger applicability under the NSPS over the next 8 years)
      3) There is another regulatory program which has rules in place that are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, with equivalent or greater stringency. (e.g., review of the NSPS would not result in more stringent emissions limits than another existing CAA requirement.)

	Table 1 below (A copy of Table 2 from the ANPR) lists NSPS standards for which EPA believes the current NSPS sufficiently addresses pollutants of concern and thus remains effective, and for which EPA believes revision of such NSPS will not provide net environmental benefits. The table also indicates which of the three criteria described above apply to each of the listed NSPS.
	The following section of this document provides brief summaries of the manner in which EPA believes the identified criteria establish that no revisions are required for each of these candidates, including citations for the NSPS and any other referenced rules. Attachment 1 includes detailed assessments of these criteria for the three NSPS categories described in Section III.B.4 of the ANPR, Primary Zinc Production, Magnetic Tape Production, and Publication Rotogravure Printing.
Table 1: NSPS potentially meeting criteria to not be reviewed based on CAA 111(b) (1) (B) authority
                                    Subpart
                                     NSPS
                              No Review Criterion

                 BDT from current standard remains appropriate
  No expected applicability of NSPS (No new/modified/ reconstructed sources)
          Equivalent/more stringent requirements in Other CAA actions
                                       P
Primary Copper Smelters
                                       x
                                       x
                                       x
                                       Q
Primary Zinc Smelters
                                       x
                                       x
                                       x
                                       T
Phosphate Fertilizers - Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants

                                       x
                                       U
Phosphate Fertilizers - Superphosphoric Acid Plants

                                       x
                                       V
Phosphate Fertilizers - Diammonium Phosphate Plants

                                       x
                                       W
Phosphate Fertilizers - Triple Superphosphate Plants

                                       x
                                       x
                                       X
Phosphate Fertilizers - Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities

                                       x
                                       x
                                      EE
Metal Furniture Surface Coating

                                       x

                                      MM
Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating

                                       x
                                      NN
Phosphate Rock Plants
                                       x
                                       x

                                      QQ
Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing

                                       x
                                      BBB
Rubber Tire Manufacturing

                                       x
                                      HHH
Synthetic Fibers
                                       x

                                      SSS
Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities

                                       x

SUMMARY INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF NSPS AS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR NO REVISION
Primary Copper Smelters
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not review the NSPS for Primary Copper Smelters affected facilities at this time. The primary reason is that a review of the currently available technologies would not result in a more stringent level of control. The best system of emission reduction for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from roasters, smelting furnaces, and copper converters at primary copper production facilities is a double-absorption sulfuric acid plant. This technology is still commonly employed to control SO2 emissions in the primary copper industry and other primary metals industries.
	Additionally, there is no anticipated applicability of the NSPS during the current review cycle, because no new or modified affected facilities subject to the NSPS are expected in the next 8 years. This is primarily as a result of changes in the types of processes typically used by the industry, and closure of U.S. copper smelting facilities due to foreign competition.
	Finally, another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency. The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelting and the Area Source NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelting  result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a reviewed and subsequently revised NSPS.
Primary Zinc Smelters
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not review at this time the NSPS for Primary Zinc Smelters, which lists roasters and sintering operations as the affected facilities. The primary reason for this recommendation is that EPA believes a review of the currently available technologies would not result in any increased stringency for emission limits. BDT for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from roasters at primary zinc production facilities is still employed to control SO2 emissions in the primary zinc industry and other primary metals industries.
	Additionally, there is no anticipated applicability of the NSPS during the current review cycle, because no new or modified affected facilities that would be subject to the NSPS are expected in the next 8 years. This is primarily as a result of changes in the types of processes typically used by the industry, and an overall decline in the number of operational facilities in recent decades.
	Finally, under section 112 of the CAA, requirements are in place which would apply to any new or modified facility with provisions which are effectively at least as stringent as what would likely be considered BDT under an NSPS BDT review. The controls and emissions limits specified in the NESHAP for Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources - Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium result in reductions of SO2 and PM that meet or exceed those which would be required by a reviewed and subsequently revised NSPS.
Phosphate Fertilizers - Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Phosphate Fertilizers - Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid affected facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and the NESHAP for Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS. We anticipate new sources in this industry and we expect this particular production process to dominate the Phosphate Fertilizer production industry.
Phosphate Fertilizers - Superphosphoric Acid Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Phosphate Fertilizers - Superphosphoric Acid affected facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and the NESHAP for Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS. We anticipate new sources in this industry and think it is likely that the at least two new sources using this particular production process will start up within the next 8 years.
Phosphate Fertilizers - Diammonium Phosphate Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Phosphate Fertilizers - Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) affected facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and the NESHAP for Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS. Because DAP is produced from wet-process phosphoric acid plants, we anticipate new sources in this industry and we expect this particular production process to dominate the Phosphate Fertilizer production industry.
Phosphate Fertilizers - Triple Superphosphate Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not review the NSPS for Phosphate Fertilizers - Triple Superphosphate facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and the NESHAP for Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS. Furthermore, triple superphosphate is used to produce Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP), discussed below.  Because demand for GTSP has ceased, the production of triple superphosphate has likewise ceased.  We do not anticipate new sources in this source category within the next 8 years.
Phosphate Fertilizers - Granular Triple Superphosphate Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Phosphate Fertilizers - Granular Triple Superphosphate affected facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and the NESHAP for Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS.  Additionally, demand for and production of GTSP have ceased over the last 20 years.  We therefore anticipate no new sources in this industry over the next 8 years.
 Metal Furniture Surface Coating
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Metal Furniture Surface Coating Facilities at this time because there is no anticipated applicability for the NSPS for Metal Furniture Surface Coating Facilities during the current review cycle. This is primarily due to the continual decline of the industry over the last decade, largely as a result of increased foreign production. As a result, there is no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 years, and there are no anticipated reconstruction or modification events which would trigger NSPS applicability.
Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not review the NSPS for Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating affected facilities at this time.  Another regulatory program has rules in place which EPA believes would apply to any new or modified facility with provisions which, while they do not provide a one-to one matching with those of the NSPS, are effectively at least as stringent as what would likely be considered BDT under an NSPS BDT review.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a revised NSPS.
Phosphate Rock Plants
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for revision of the NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants consisting of dryers, calciners, grinders, and handling and storage facilities affected facilities.  The primary reason is that a review of the currently available technologies would not result in a more stringent level of control.  A second reason is that no new or modified affected facilities are expected in the next 8 years due to continual decline in the industry over the last 20 years with no indication of a future reversal of this trend.
Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing
      An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing at this time.   Another regulatory program has rules in place that EPA believes are applicable to the same pollutants and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in NSPS requirements of equal or lesser stringency.  The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Printing and Publishing is significantly more stringent than the NSPS under subpart QQ.
Rubber Tire Manufacturing
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Rubber Tire Manufacturing affected facilities at this time. Another regulatory program has rules in place which EPA believes would apply to any new or modified facility with provisions which are effectively at least as stringent as what would likely be considered BDT under an NSPS BDT review. The controls and emission limits specified in the NESHAP for Tire Manufacturing likely result in emissions reductions that meet or exceed those which would be required by a reviewed and subsequently revised NSPS.
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Synthetic Fiber Production facilities at this time. The primary reason is that EPA believes that a review of the currently available technologies would not result in any increased stringency for emission limits, since EPA is unaware of any new emission control technologies for the industry.
Magnetic Tape Production
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the Administrator need not revise the NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities at this time because there is no anticipated applicability for the NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities during the current review cycle. This is primarily due to the continual decline of the industry over the past 20 years resulting from foreign competition and changes in the marketplace since the emergence of alternative technologies (e.g., optical recording media.)  As a result, there is no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 years, and there are no anticipated reconstruction or modification events which would trigger NSPS applicability.

                                 ATTACHMENT 1
          Detailed Assessments of NSPS Categories Described in ANPR:
              Primary Zinc Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Q),
            Magnetic Tape Production (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SSS)
Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQ)

Primary Zinc Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Q)
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for revision of the NSPS for Primary Zinc Smelters consisting of roaster and sintering operation affected facilities. The primary reason is that a review of the currently available technologies would not result in a more stringent level of control. A second reason is that no new or modified affected facilities are expected in the next 8 years due to changes in the types of processes typically used. Finally, another Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement would apply to any new or modified facility with provisions which are effectively at least as stringent as what would likely be considered Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT) under an NSPS BDT review.
	We believe that a review of the currently available technologies would not result in a more stringent level of control for the two processes controlled under the NSPS:  roasters and sintering machines. The Background Information Document (BID) for the Primary Zinc Production NSPS contains EPA's determination that BDT for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from roasters at primary zinc production facilities is a double-absorption sulfuric acid plant. This technology is still commonly employed to control SO2 emissions in the primary zinc industry and other primary metals industries. Average daily conversion rates of at least 99.7  -  99.9 % are achievable with the double contact process.  We have not identified any other control technology that could achieve greater reductions, and we believe that a new BDT determination would not result in any change in the current level of control.
	The same BID described BDT for sintering machines as fabric filter control for particulate matter (PM) emissions. This technology, which can achieve emission reductions up to 99 %, still represents the most effective technology to capture these emissions. Therefore, we believe that a new BDT determination would not result in any change in the current level of control.
	Changes in industry structure support a finding that there will be no new primary zinc production facilities in the U.S. in the next 8 years. World-wide, 70 percent of the zinc produced comes from mined ores and 30 percent from recycled or secondary zinc. The level of recycling is increasing each year, and over 80 percent of the zinc available for recycling is actually recycled.  Twelve companies recycle zinc in the U.S., primarily in the form of electric arc furnace (EAF) dust, which is a hazardous waste produced by the steel mini-mill manufacturing process.  These recycling processes do not use a roaster, which is the primary source of emissions from a primary zinc smelting operation.
	The second affected facility in the NSPS is the sintering operation, which is subject to a PM emission limit and a visible emissions limit (opacity). Sintering only takes place at one of the two available processes for converting zinc sulfide concentrate to zinc metal. At present, there are no U.S. operations that use this process. It is unlikely that any sources would install such a process in the future. According to an overview of zinc smelting, the vast majority of zinc smelting plants in the western world use the electrolytic process (vs. sintering and retorting in the pyrometallurgical process alternative) because it is more energy efficient, has higher recovery rates, and is easier to automate, which improves productivity.
	Data from the US Geological Survey (USGS)  and EPA[1] show that the primary zinc industry has been in decline for over a decade. In 1974, when the NSPS was under development, there were eight primary zinc production facilities in the US. There were four primary zinc production facilities listed in the 1994 USGS Minerals Yearbook, and by 2007 only one was operational, the Nyrstar Clarkesville, TN refinery. A second former primary producer, Horsehead Holding Corporation's Monaca, PA plant, has converted its production facilities to secondary production only.  According to the company website of a third former primary producer (Big River Zinc) in Illinois, there are plans to restart a suspended smelter operation in Illinois, but no details on timing are available. Instead, the company is focusing on converting the existing electrolytic operation to wash impure concentrates produced by a recycling plant in Ohio.  Because any future use of the Illinois site as primary production facility would take place on an existing site, we do not believe it would trigger NSPS applicability. Because of this, we believe that no new or modified primary zinc smelter is expected to be constructed using existing technology in the next 8 years.
	Furthermore, there is another applicable CAA regulation whose requirements are at least as stringent as what would likely be considered BDT under an NSPS BDT review. As described below, the controls employed to comply with requirements of the NSPS for Primary Zinc Smelters and the NESHAP for Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources - Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGGGG) are effectively the same. Table 1 summarizes the requirements of the two rules.
	Control of emissions of SO2 and visible emissions (required by the NSPS) and air toxics PM (required by the NESHAP) from roasters are both achieved at all currently existing facilities by venting the emissions to a sulfuric acid plant. Under the NSPS, roasters are subject to SO2 emission limits. Meeting those limits requires the source to duct roaster emissions to a sulfuric acid plant to reduce SO2 emissions. In order for the sulfuric acid plant to operate properly, the roaster exhaust must first be cleaned of PM. The area source NESHAP codifies this step in the process by requiring a PM control device, with the goal of achieving control of air toxics PM. However, the NESHAP also specifically requires that off-gases from each roaster are vented to a sulfuric acid plant, including during the charging of the roaster. Thus, although the NESHAP has no specific emission limit for SO2, it effectively requires the same level of control as the NSPS. The preamble to the proposal of the Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Source NESHAP[10], describes the effectiveness of the controls as follows:
      "While the sulfuric acid plants were originally installed to recover sulfuric acid as a by-product and to control SO2 emissions, the inherent design and operating requirements of these plants also provide effective control of PM and metal HAP contained in roaster offgases. The sulfuric acid production process involves the catalytic conversion of the SO2 contained in the off-gases to produce liquid sulfuric acid. To optimize the process performance and prevent extensive damage to the catalysts and other critical process equipment, the first step of the process requires that the roaster off-gases be precleaned and conditioned. These operations involve first passing the gas stream through multiple control devices for the removal of PM and to reduce gas stream temperature. By using multiple PM control devices in series (multicyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and venturi scrubbers) to treat roaster exhaust gases before entering the sulfuric acid plant, very high overall PM and metal HAP removal efficiencies are achieved. Consequently, there is little or no PM or metal HAP emitted in the tail gas from the sulfuric acid plant."
      "Because rigorous treatment of the roaster off-gases to remove PM and metal HAP is a necessary operating condition for the sulfuric acid plant, requiring that cleaned gases be vented to a sulfuric acid plant ensures that emissions of HAP metals are either nonexistent or limited to trace amounts."
	Although the NESHAP does not include any limitation on visible emissions (opacity) from the outlet of the acid plant (as the NSPS does), any new facilities would still be subject to the opacity limits imposed by the NSPS.
	Emissions from the second affected facility referenced in the NSPS, sintering machines, are addressed under the NESHAP through a direct reference to the existing NSPS provisions. As described above, sintering machines (and the pyrometallurgical process for primary zinc smelting) are no longer employed at any currently operational primary zinc facilities. Because the pyrometallurgical process is less energy efficient, has lower recovery rates, and is more difficult to automate, we do not believe that it is likely to be employed at any existing or new facilities. Because of this, and because currently available information does not indicate any improvements in technology which might affect emissions from this source type, we believe that the currently existing BDT for sintering machines at primary zinc facilities is unlikely to change.
	Taking these factors into account, we believe that the design imperatives of the sulfuric acid plant combined with the NESHAP requirements will result in the installation of controls equivalent to BDT under the NSPS at any new primary zinc facility, were one to be constructed.
Table 1: Comparison of Requirements: The Primary Zinc NSPS (Part 60, Subpart Q) and         the Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Source NESHAP (Part 63, Subpart GGGGGG)
Emission Source
Pollutant
NSPS Requirement
NESHAP Requirement
Roaster
SO2
0.065 % by volume. Sources meet this limit by cleaning the roaster exhaust using PM controls and then ducting emissions to a sulfuric acid plant.

The NESHAP does not address SO2 emissions or sulfuric acid mist because they are not HAP. However, it does require existing and new sources to exhaust the off-gases from each roaster to a sulfuric acid plant, including during the charging of the roaster. Although there is no numeric emission limit specified, the effective level of control achieved is equivalent.

PM
The NSPS does not directly address PM. However, in order to meet the SO2 standard, sources must clean the roaster exhaust to avoid fouling the catalyst in the acid plant.

 Existing and new sources must exhaust the off-gases from each roaster to a PM control device, including during the charging of the roaster. Because rigorous treatment of the roaster off-gases to remove PM and metal HAP is a necessary operating condition for the sulfuric acid plant, requiring that cleaned gases be vented to a sulfuric acid plant ensures that emissions of HAP metals are either nonexistent or limited to trace amounts.

Opacity
20 % opacity (acid mist) from the sulfuric acid plant.

The NESHAP does not address sulfuric acid mist because it is not a HAP.
Furnaces
PM
(No NSPS requirement for this emission source.)
(1) PM Emissions limits:                                                               Existing Sources                                                                         (a) .93 lbs/hr. from the exhaust vent of a zinc cathode melting furnace;                                                                                (b) 0.1 lb/hr from the exhaust vent of a furnace that melts zinc dust, zinc chips, and/or other materials containing zinc;                                                                                (c) 0.228 lb/hr from the vent for the combined exhaust from a furnace melting zinc scrap and an alloy furnace;                                                             (d) 0.014 gr/dscf from the exhaust vent of an anode casting furnace;                                                                                (e) 0.015 gr/dscf from the exhaust vent of a cadmium melting furnace; and                                                                                (f) 0.005 gr/dscf as an alternative to the limits in lb/hr in (a)-(c); New Sources                                                                                (a) 0.005 gr/dscf from the exhaust vent of a zinc cathode and melting furnace, furnace melting zinc dust, zinc chips, and/or other materials containing zinc, and alloy melting furnace;                                                               (b) 0.014 gr/dscf from the exhaust of an anode casting furnace; and                                                                                (c) 0.015 gr/dscf from the exhaust vent of a cadmium melting furnace;
(2) Operating Parameters and Monitoring: Existing and new sources must establish and comply with operating parameters and monitoring requirements

Sintering Machine
SO2
Any sintering machine which eliminates more than 10 percent of the sulfur initially contained in the zinc sulfide ore concentrates will be considered as a roaster.

The NESHAP does not address SO2.

PM
0.022 gr/dscf (50 mg/dscm). Initial Method 5 test only.
Existing and new sources must meet the PM emissions limit in 40 CFR 60.172 for any sintering machine operated. (This is a reference to Part 60, Subpart Q, the NSPS for Primary Zinc)

Opacity
20 % Opacity measured by COMS
Existing and new sources must meet the opacity limit in 40 CFR 60.174(a) for any sintering machine operated. (This is a reference to Part 60, Subpart Q, the NSPS for Primary Zinc)

Magnetic Tape Production (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SSS)
	An evaluation of currently available information indicates that the NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities remains effective; therefore, we believe a revision of the standard would not be needed at this time. The primary basis for this assessment is the continual decline of the industry over the past 20 years. As a result, there is no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 years, and there are no anticipated reconstruction or modification events which would trigger NSPS applicability. Consequently, there would be no environmental benefit in reviewing, and subsequently revising emission limits based on what would be considered BDT for the magnetic tape production NSPS category at this time.
	Information collected in 2005 by EPA during the initial development of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the magnetic tape production industry[,] clearly shows the industry has been in decline for decades. This has been due to foreign competition and changes in the marketplace resulting from the emergence of alternative technologies (e.g., optical recording media.)  The NESHAP development process includes the development of the original NESHAP for magnetic tape production in 1994 and a MACT review and residual risk determination in 2005. During the NESHAP development process, EPA prepared facility counts for the industry, based on direct contact with industry representatives and State regulatory agencies. Discussion with industry representatives at the time of the residual risk analysis conducted in 2005 also revealed that none of the remaining facilities indicated any plans to add lines or modify their magnetic tape production operations.
	A search for NAICS 334613 "Magnetic and Optical Recording Media Manufacturing," performed via EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database identified two facilities with any permit activity, both dating to the early 1990s. Both of the facilities are among the six facilities identified as being currently operational in EPA's 2005 MACT review and residual risk determination. One of the two facilities identified was specifically cited as being subject to the magnetic tape production NSPS.
	Table 2 is a summary of the magnetic tape industry facility count information collected during the magnetic tape NESHAP development process. It shows a decline in magnetic tape production facilities of approximately 85 percent since 1988, from 42 facilities to 6 (all 6 of which were major sources under the NESHAP).
	We also reviewed other data sources to confirm the industry growth trends identified in EPA's research. The Census data for the NAICS primarily corresponding to the magnetic tape industry, NAICS 334613 (Magnetic and Optical Recording Media Manufacture), cannot be directly compared with the facility counts taken from the NESHAP development process, as many of the facilities in the category manufacture products that are not regulated by the MACT rule (e.g., recordable CD and DVD media, which are produced using an entirely different process from magnetic tape.)  The census data include optical media manufacture and are not directly representative of the industry covered by the NSPS and NESHAP regulations. Data indicating the portion of the broader industry represented by magnetic tape were not available. However, the available census data shows a moderate (33 percent) decline in establishments in the broader sector represented by NAICS 334613 between 1997 and 2002, and a sharp (72 percent) decline in employment, perhaps reflecting consolidation and automation.
We believe that there is no need at this time for revision of the NSPS for Magnetic Tape Production operations, because there is no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 years, and there are no anticipated reconstruction or modification events which would trigger NSPS applicability. The lack of expected growth is based on decades of decline in magnetic tape facilities reflected by the facility counts compiled during EPA regulatory development for the magnetic tape NESHAP in conjunction with the moderate decline in the entire magnetic and optical recording media manufacture industry shown by recent census data.

	         Table 2: Estimated Facility Numbers in Magnetic Tape Industry, 1988-2005
Year
Number of Facilities in                  Magnetic Tape Industry
1988
42
1994
25
2005
6
		Source Notes: 1988 number is taken from the preamble to the 1994 NESHAP.                                                                                1994 and 2005 numbers are taken from 2005 MACT review & Residual Risk 			analysis.

Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQ)

      The third example of an NSPS category for which currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for review of the applicable NSPS is Publication Rotogravure Printing (40 CFR 60 subpart QQ). In accordance with criteria 3, the NESHAP (40 CFR subpart KK) for Printing and Publishing is significantly more stringent than the NSPS under subpart QQ. The NESHAP recently went through EPA's Risk and Technology Review (RTR) process and no additional technology standards were adopted pursuant to CAA section 112(d) (6). Furthermore, any new facility or new press would likely be subject to non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and consequently required to apply Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Only two new facilities have been built in the past 15 years since the NESHAP was promulgated in 1996. Both of these facilities placed their presses in permanent total enclosures using carbon adsorbers to achieve very efficient solvent recovery. As part of EPA's Risk and Technology Review (RTR) it was determined that no new advancements in practices, processes or control technologies beyond those in place at the two new facilities were identified. The BACT level control at the two new facilities is representative of current industry practice and is state of the art technology, and a revised best system of emission reduction for the solvent recovery practice listed in the NSPS would not be more stringent. Under criteria 2, there has been almost no growth in the industry in the past decade. The number of publication rotogravure printing facilities has declined from 27 to under 20 in the last 10 years. Only two facilities have been built in the last 15 years. No new facilities are anticipated during the next 8 year review cycle. Therefore, we do not expect applicability of the NSPS in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we believe no additional emission reductions would be achieved from a revision to the current standard. Thus the agency believes that the Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS (subpart QQ) meets the criteria to not review as described in this document.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60994-60995]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0351; FRL-9970-20-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable
Oil Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR)--NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG) (Renewal), EPA
ICR Number 1947.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0471--to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2018. Public comments
were previously requested, via the Federal Register (82 FR 29552) on
June 29, 2017, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, any collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 25,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0351, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at:
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGGG. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-
time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility and records of solvent, HAP content, and oilseed
inventory. Reports are required annually at a minimum.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of vegetable oil
production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGGG).
    Estimated number of respondents: 90 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 33,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $3,510,000 (per year). There are no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease in the respondent
labor hours and number of responses in this ICR compared to the
previous ICR. This adjustment corrects the number of sources that
submit a notification of compliance status. This is a one-time
notification that only applies to the one reconstructed source, and is
not an annual burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-27707 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46730-46731]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16866]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78300; File No. 4-701]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Minor Rule Violation Plan

July 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on July 11, 2016, Investors' Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'') with
sanctions not exceeding $2,500 which would not be subject to the
provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) of the Act \3\ requiring that a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') promptly file notice with the
Commission of any final disciplinary action taken with respect to any
person or organization.\4\ In accordance with Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under
the Act,\5\ the Exchange proposed to designate certain specified rule
violations as minor rule violations, and requested that it be relieved
of the prompt reporting requirements regarding such violations,
provided it gives notice of such violations to the Commission on a
quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
    \4\ The Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule
19d-1 to allow SROs to submit for Commission approval plans for the
abbreviated reporting of minor disciplinary infractions. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 FR
23828 (June 8, 1984). Any disciplinary action taken by an SRO
against any person for violation of a rule of the SRO which has been
designated as a minor rule violation pursuant to such a plan filed
with and declared effective by the Commission is not considered
``final'' for purposes of Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the
sanction imposed consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the
sanctioned person has not sought an adjudication, including a
hearing, or otherwise exhausted his administrative remedies.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to include in its MRVP the procedures
included in Exchange Rule 9.216(b) (``Procedure for Violation Under
Plan Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2)'') and violations to be
included in Exchange Rule 9.218 (``Violations Appropriate for
Disposition Under Plan Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c)(2)'').\6\
According to the Exchange's MRVP, under Rule 9.216(b), the Exchange may
impose a fine (not to exceed $2,500) and/or a censure on any Member or
associated person with respect to any rule listed in IEX Rule 9.218. If
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') Department of
Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation, on behalf of the
Exchange, has reason to believe a violation has occurred and if the
Member or associated person does not dispute the violation, the
Department of Enforcement or the Department of Market Regulation may
prepare and request that the Member or associated person execute a
minor rule violation plan letter accepting a finding of violation,
consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such
Member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a Hearing
Panel or, if applicable, an Extended Hearing Panel, and any right of
appeal to the IEX Appeals Committee, the Board, the SEC, and the
courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the
letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice
engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision
violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed. Unless the
letter states otherwise, the effective date of any sanction(s) imposed
will be a date to be determined by IEX Regulation staff. In the event
the letter is not accepted by the Member or associated person, or is
rejected by the Office of Disciplinary Affairs, the matter can proceed
in accordance with the Exchange's disciplinary rules already approved
by the Commission, which include hearing rights for formal disciplinary
proceedings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange received its grant of registration on June 17,
2016, which included approving the rules that govern the Exchange.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17, 2016), 81 FR
41141 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-222). The Exchange anticipates,
upon effectiveness of its MRVP, to file a rule proposal pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, to amend
Rule 9.218 to specify the violations to be subject to the MRVP.
Exhibit A includes the entirety of Rule 9.216(b) and anticipated
changes to Rule 9.218.
    \7\ See, Chapter 9 generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, as set forth in Exchange Rule 9.218,
violations of the following rules would be appropriate for disposition
under the MRVP: Rule 2.160(p)--Continuing Education Requirements; Rule
4.511 (General Requirements related to books and records requirements);
Rule 4.540 (Furnishing of records); Rule 5.110 (Supervision); Rule
8.220 (Automated submission of trading data requested); Rule
11.151(a)(1) (Market Maker two-sided quotation requirement); Rule
11.290 (Short sales); Rule 11.310 (Locking or crossing quotations in
NMS stocks); and Rule 11.420 (Order audit trail system requirements).
    Upon the Commission's declaration of effectiveness of the MRVP, the
Exchange will provide to the Commission a quarterly report for any
actions taken on minor rule violations under the MRVP. The quarterly
report will include: The Exchange's internal file number for the case,
the name of the individual and/or organization, the nature of the
violation, the specific rule provision violated, the sanction imposed,
the number of times the rule violation occurred, and the date of the
disposition.

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes that, going forward, to the
extent that there are any changes to the rules applicable to the
Exchange's MRVP, the Exchange hereby requests that the Commission deem
such changes to be modifications to the Exchange's MRVP.

I. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the Exchange's proposed MRVP, including whether
the proposed MRVP 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 4-701 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-701. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed MRVP that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
MRVP between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the proposed MRVP also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number 4-701, and should be submitted
on or before August 2, 2016.

II. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Minor Rule Violation Plan and
Timing for Commission Action

    Pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Act and Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
thereunder,\8\ after August 2, 2016, the Commission may, by order,
declare the Exchange proposed MRVP effective if the plan is consistent
with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission in its order may
restrict the categories of violations to be designated as minor rule
violations and may impose any other terms or conditions to the proposed
MRVP, File No. 4-701, and to the period of its effectiveness, which the
Commission deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for
the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1); 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16866 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ENCLOSURE 1 [ Magnetic Tape Manufacturing NESHAP, Subpart EE  Residual Risk Evaluation]

1. Please review the following annual toxics release inventory ( TRI) emissions data reported for your facility in 2000 and revise/ comment where necessary:

Pollutant Stack ( Pounds) Fugitive ( Pounds) Comments/ Corrections methyl ethyl ketone: 4,880 375,300 _________________________________________

toluene: 1,200 90,900 _________________________________________

cobalt: 0 1,155 _________________________________________

cobalt compounds: 250 0 _________________________________________

_______________: ________ _______ _________________________________________

2. What was the basis for the emissions calculation/ estimation for the listed compounds? ( AP 42 emission factors, engineering judgement, internal study, test data/ reports, etc.)

Methyl ethyl ketone: Mass Balance Toluene: Mass Balance Cobalt: Mass Balance cobalt compounds: Mass Balance other_________________:

3. Estimate the percent of total emissions coming from the mix room/ area, coating lines( s), ovens( s), control equipment, and any other emission sources on an annual basis using Table 1 ( on back of this page).

4. Provide facility plot or diagram showing each emission point ( source). For each " general" emission point, include an overview description, including physical dimensions of process areas/ rooms, equipment, stacks( s), etc. ( on a separate page if necessary). TABLE 1. EMISSION SOURCE INFORMATION WITHIN A FACILITY [ Magnetic Tape Manufacturing NESHAP, Subpart EE  Residual Risk Evaluation]

Pollutant Emission Source 5 % Mixing Room 25 % Coating Line( s)

50 % Oven( s)

15 % Control Equipment Example: Xylene 5 % Other: Misc. Transfer 20% Mixing Room 30% Coating Line 35% Oven 5% Control Equipment Methyl Ethyl Ketone 10% Other: Misc. Fugitives 20% Mixing Room 30% Coating Line 35% Oven 5% Control Equipment Toluene 10% Other: Misc. Fugitives NA Mixing Room NA Coating Line NA Oven 25 Control Equipment Cobalt 75 Other: Misc. Fugitives 80% Mixing Room NA Coating Line NA Oven NA Control Equipment Cobalt Compounds 20% Other: Misc. Fugitives


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7886-7888]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74221; File No. SR-BOX-2015-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC Options Facility

February 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 30, 2015, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Volume Rebate
(``BVR'') in Section I.B.2 of the Fee Schedule (Auction Transactions).
    Under the current BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract
rebate for all PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 250 contracts and under.
PIP and COPIP executions of 250 contracts and under are awarded a per
contract rebate according to the Participant's Monthly Average Daily
Volume (``ADV'') in PIP and COPIP transactions. Each Participant's
monthly ADV is based on PIP and COPIP quantity submitted and calculated
at the end of each month.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of calculating monthly ADV, BOX will count as a
half day any day that the market closes early for a holiday
observance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current per contract rebate for Participants in PIP and COPIP
Transactions under the BVR is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Per contract rebate (all account
   Monthly ADV in PIP and COPIP                    types)
           transactions            -------------------------------------
                                           PIP               COPIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,001 contracts and greater.....            ($0.17)            ($0.08)
40,001 contracts to 100,000                    (0.14)             (0.06)
 contracts........................
20,001 contracts to 40,000                     (0.07)             (0.04)
 contracts........................
1 contract to 20,000 contracts....             (0.00)             (0.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adjust the BVR contract threshold and now
offer the tiered per contract rebate for all PIP Orders and COPIP
Orders of 100 contracts and under. The quantity submitted will remain
based on a Participant's monthly ADV as calculated at the end of each
month.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to lower the rebates associated
with each volume tier. The new BVR set forth in Section I.B.2 of the
BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Per contract rebate (all account
   Monthly ADV in PIP and COPIP                    types)
           transactions            -------------------------------------
                                           PIP               COPIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,001 contracts and greater.....            ($0.14)            ($0.06)
40,001 contracts to 100,000                    (0.11)             (0.04)
 contracts........................
20,001 contracts to 40,000                     (0.04)             (0.02)
 contracts........................
1 contract to 20,000 contracts....             (0.00)             (0.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section
I.B.2 are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The BVR was
adopted to attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by
offering these Participants incentives to submit their PIP and COPIP
Orders to the Exchange. Other Exchange [sic] employ similar incentive
programs.\7\ The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to
continue to provide incentives for Public Customers, which will result
in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants trading on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes providing a rebate to Participants
that reach a certain volume threshold is equitable and non-
discriminatory as the rebate will apply to all Participants uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section B of the Phlx Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program'' and CBOE's Volume Incentive Program
(VIP). CBOE's Volume Incentive Program (``VIP'') pays certain tiered
rebates to Trading Permit Holders for electronically executed
multiply-listed option orders which include AIM orders. Note that
these exchanges base these rebate programs on the percentage of
total national Public Customer volume traded on their respective
exchanges, which the Exchange is not proposing to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory to restrict the BVR to PIP and COPIP Orders of 100
contracts and under. The BVR is intended to incentivize Participants to
direct Customer order flow to the Exchange, which is typically
comprised of small order sizes. The Exchange has found that orders of
more than 100 contracts are typically larger institutional orders.
Further, these larger orders are encouraged to use the Facilitation and
Solicitation Auction mechanisms.\8\ The Exchange believes restricting
the BVR to PIP and COPIP Orders of 100 contracts and under is equitable
and non-discriminatory as this will apply to all Participants
uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Faciliation [sic] Auction and Solicitation Auction were
designed to give market participants mechanisms for large block
orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65387 (September 23,
2011), 76 FR 60569 (September 29, 2011) (Order Approving Proposed
Rule Change of SR-BX-2011-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that lowering the rebates associated with
each volume tier is reasonable and competitive when compared to rebate
structures at other exchanges.\9\ Once the volume threshold is met, the
Exchange will continue [sic] pay the rebates on applicable PIP and
COPIP Orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed rebates are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Participants are
eligible to receive a rebate provided they meet both the volume and
order type requirements. The Exchange believes that applying the rebate
to PIP and COPIP Orders will continue to provide these Participants
with an added incentive to transact a greater number of Public Customer
Orders on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra, note 7.

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

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to provide a higher rebate for PIP
Orders than COPIP Orders. The rebate is intended to incentivize
Participants to submit PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the
Exchange believes that COPIP Orders do not need the same level of
incentivization. The Exchange believes the lower COPIP rebate will
still provide greater liquidity and trading opportunities for all
market participants.

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. The Exchange believes the
proposed fee changes are reasonably designed to enhance competition in
BOX transactions, particularly auction transactions.
    The proposed rule change modifies the contract threshold and tiered
rebates awarded to Participants based on their monthly ADV in PIP and
COPIP. BOX notes that its market model and fees are generally intended
to benefit retail customers by providing incentives for Participants to
submit their customer order flow to BOX, and to the PIP and COPIP in
particular. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee change
burdens competition and will instead help promote competition by
continuing to providing [sic] incentives for market participants to
submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater
opportunity for retail customers to receive additional price
improvement.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\11\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-BOX-2015-11 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-BOX-2015-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-11, and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02894 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P