[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14831-14835]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6416]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0279; FRL-9283-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Kansas; Proposed Disapproval of Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Revision for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Kansas CAA
``Infrastructure'' State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in another State with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS). On April 12, 2010, Kansas submitted a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) intended to address the infrastructure SIP requirements for
``infrastructure.'' The submittal also included language to address the
interstate transport requirements under the CAA. In this action, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the portion of the Kansas SIP revision intended
to address requirements prohibiting a State's emissions from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. The rationale for the
proposed action is described in this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2011-0279 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning & Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Ms.
Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning & Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2011-0279 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101, from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning &
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: (913)
551-7186; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires States to submit infrastructure SIPs to address a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\ As provided by
Section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that a submitted
SIP is complete under 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act, where portions of
the State submittals are severable, within that 12 month period EPA may
decide to approve only those severable portions of the submittals that
meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient provisions are not
severable from the other submitted provisions, EPA must propose
disapproval of the submittals, consistent with Section 110(k)(3) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On
September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(2009 Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 Guidance to make
recommendations to States for making submissions to meet the
requirements of Section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another State in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other States; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other States; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other States.
    In the 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
States pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should
contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the State that contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA further
indicated that the State's submission should explain whether or not
emissions from the State

have this impact and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated that the
State's conclusion should be supported by an adequate technical
analysis. EPA recommended the various types of information that could
be relevant to support the State SIP submission, such as information
concerning emissions in the State, meteorological conditions in the
State and the potentially impacted States, monitored ambient
concentrations in the State, and air quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA
indicated that States should address the ``interfere with maintenance''
requirement independently which requires an evaluation of impacts on
areas of other States that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that States could not rely on
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    EPA promulgated the CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind
State. CAIR was intended to provide States covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
to address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in another State with respect to the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many States adopted the CAIR
provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the
CAIR requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIP) in their
entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008).
However, in response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued
an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The
Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to ``temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a
rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11,
2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing
that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that emissions from
sources in a State must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other States. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Kansas significantly contributes to
nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
    \3\ See Section IV on Defining ``Significant Contribution'' and
``Interference With Maintenance,'' 75 FR 45229 of ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 45210 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2010, EPA received a SIP revision from the State of
Kansas intended to address the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well
as other requirements of Section 110(a)(2). In this rulemaking, EPA is
addressing only the requirements that pertain to prohibiting sources in
Kansas from emitting pollutants that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in other States. In its submission, the State of
Kansas indicated that emissions from the State do not significantly
interfere with the attainment nor maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind States. The submission included a
description of relevant State actions intended to address the
interstate transport of emissions.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?

    On April 12, 2010, EPA received an Infrastructure SIP revision from
the State of Kansas intended to address the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
portion of Kansas' submittal to address the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations indicates that the State has implemented several actions to
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Kansas' submittal describes how the State believes it meets
transport requirements based in part on recent controls established for
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in the State.
Kansas summarizes that the reductions represent a 32% reduction in the
total Kansas point source NOX emissions and a 58% reduction
in the total Kansas point source SOX emissions from the 2005
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, EPA's preliminary
photochemical modeling for the proposed Transport Rule, to address
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), indicates that emissions from the State of Kansas
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance in other States with respect to the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section IV on Defining ``Significant Contribution'' and
``Interference With Maintenance,'' 75 FR 45229 of ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 45210 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2009 Guidance stated that a State's SIP submission pertaining
to the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by
an adequate technical analysis.\5\ EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the State's SIP
submission. While Kansas submitted a description of actions that have
been implemented to reduce NOX and SO2 emissions,
the State did not further evaluate or demonstrate with a technical
analysis that these measures address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit Kansas' air pollutant emissions from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance in other States. EPA believes that the documentation
submitted does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in
part, because the submittal lacks a technical demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X (September 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon our evaluation, EPA is proposing that this SIP revision
does not meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA is proposing disapproval of the portion of Kansas'
Infrastructure SIP relating to Interstate Transport, Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The submitted

provisions are severable from each other. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to disapprove those provisions which relate to the Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration and will act on the remainder of the
SIP submission in a subsequent rulemaking.
    Also, under Section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a
submittal that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A.
Sec. Sec.  7501-7515), or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call),
starts a sanctions clock. The provisions in the submittal we are
proposing to disapprove were not submitted to meet either of those
requirements. Therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this
submittal, no sanctions will be triggered.
    The full or partial disapproval of a State implementation plan
revision triggers the requirement under Section 110(c) that EPA
promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval
unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator
approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates
such FIP. The Transport Rule FIP, if finalized in the manner proposed,
may address these requirements for the State of Kansas.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    We are proposing to disapprove a submission from the State of
Kansas intended to demonstrate that Kansas has adequately addressed the
elements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that require the State's SIP
to contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
sources within a State from significantly contributing to nonattainment
in or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State. We are proposing to
determine that the Kansas submission does not contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State
that significantly contribute to nonattainment in or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other
downwind States. Any remaining elements of the submittal, including
language to address other CAA Section 110(a)(2) elements, including
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another State designed to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility, are
not addressed in this action. EPA is proposing to disapprove only the
provisions which relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. This action merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. However, today's proposed disapproval
does not have federalism implications. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997).This proposed SIP disapproval under Section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section
12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by Sections 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-6416 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47625]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2313-000]

Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 24, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 3, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19522 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56002-56003]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0182]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
    Henry G. Peterson, a private individual, seeks a waiver of
compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR part 223, Safety Glazing
Standards, 49 CFR 223.15, Requirements for existing passenger cars.
Specifically, Mr. Peterson has petitioned for one lightweight passenger
car built in 1950 for the Southern Pacific Railroad as their 10409, now
RPCX 8322. Mr. Peterson operates this car on approximately 130 miles of
track owned by the Genesee & Wyoming Railroad. This car was purchased
by Mr. Peterson in 1993 from Amtrak. There have been no accidents/
incidents attributed directly or indirectly to window glazing failures
in this equipment while under current ownership. The maximum authorized
speed for this train is 45 mph, mostly rural in nature. The car
operates in excursion service on two weekends in December with two
round trips on Fridays and four round trips on Saturdays and Sundays
(20 Polar Express Trips, annual mileage is approximately 800).
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 24, 2011 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are available for examination during
regular business hours (9 a.m.- 5 p.m.) at the above facility. All
documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and
copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 6, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-23126 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6261-6262]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0063]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on January 22, 2020, the
Mohawk, Adirondack, and Northern Railroad Corporation (MHWA) petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to extend a waiver of
compliance from the safety glazing requirements of 49 CFR 223.11,
Requirements for existing locomotives. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2009-0063.
    Specifically, MHWA seeks to extend its waiver for one 80-ton, 470-
horsepower diesel-electric locomotive numbered 1670. This locomotive
was built for the United States Air Force by General Electric in March
1952.
    MHWA operates this locomotive on a terminal/switching railroad at
the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York, now called the
Griffiss Industrial Park. MHWA operates at speeds not exceeding 10
miles per hour and hauls one to three cars on a once-per-week basis.
The locomotive is equipped with safety laminate glass (AS-1, AS-2) and
is serviced and maintained by MHWA at Rome, New York. MHWA requests the
extension due to the ``high cost to replace the glazing and the low
risk to safety of continuing to operate with the current glazing.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 20, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual

submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-02031 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68819-68822]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0975; Product Identifier 2019-NM-176-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of erroneous indications of certain engine
parameters and reports of ``pitch up'' and ``pitch down'' uncommanded
attitudes with autopilot engaged in cruise flight. This proposed AD
would require installing updated PRIMUS EPIC LOAD software, as
specified in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) Brazilian AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact National Civil Aviation
Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent
Martins, n[deg] 209, Jardim Esplanada, CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o
Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this IBR
material on the ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. You may view this IBR material at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0975.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0975; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0975;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-176-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
Brazilian AD 2019-10-02, effective October 21, 2019 (``Brazilian AD
2019-10-02'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100
SE, and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -200 STD,
and -200 LL airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by a report of erroneous indications of the
engine parameters N1, N2, and ITT from both engines due to the design
of data communication of the full authority digital engine control
(FADEC) 1 and 2 with the engine indicating and crew alerting system
(EICAS) display, which could result in interference with decisions that
must be taken by the flight crew during takeoff. This AD was also
prompted by reports of ``pitch up'' and ``pitch down'' uncommanded
attitudes with autopilot engaged in cruise flight, which could occur in
``Autoland'' mode during landing. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address these conditions, which could interfere with the decisions
taken by the flight crew during takeoff and landing and possibly result
in reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 describes procedures for installing updated
PRIMUS EPIC LOAD software. This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, Brazilian AD 2019-
10-02 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This
proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Brazilian AD
2019-10-02 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Service information specified in Brazilian AD 2019-10-02
that is required for compliance with Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 will be
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0975 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 540 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765...........................              $0             $765         $413,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0975; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
176-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 31, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD,
-100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -
200 STD, and -200 LL airplanes; certificated in any category, as
identified in Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) Brazilian AD 2019-10-02, effective October 21, 2019
(``Brazilian AD 2019-10-02'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Indicating/
recording systems.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of erroneous indications of the
engine parameters N1, N2, and ITT from both engines due to the
design of data communication of the full authority digital engine
control (FADEC) 1 and 2 with the engine indicating and crew alerting
system (EICAS) display, which could result in interference with
decisions that must be taken by the flight crew during takeoff. This
AD was also prompted by reports of ``pitch up'' and ``pitch down''
uncommanded attitudes with autopilot engaged in cruise flight, which
could occur in ``Autoland'' mode during landing. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address these conditions, which could interfere
with the decisions taken by the flight crew during takeoff and
landing and possibly result in reduced controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Brazilian AD 2019-10-02.

(h) Exceptions to Brazilian AD 2019-10-02

    (1) Where Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Alternative method of compliance (AMOC)'' section of
Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 does not apply to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (d) of Brazilian AD 2019-10-02 specifies you
must use certain service information for software installation, this
AD specifies to use that service information as applicable, except
as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of Brazilian AD 2019-
10-02.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about Brazilian AD 2019-10-02, contact
National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification
Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[deg] 209,

Jardim Esplanada, CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--
SP, Brazil; telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet www.anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this IBR material on the
ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0975.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 5, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-27062 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 15505-15506]
[DOCID:fr24mr08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12997-000]

Kentucky Hydro 4, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

March 17, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12997-000.
    c. Date filed: September 10, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Kentucky Hydro 4, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Kentucky River Lock and Dam 4
Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Kentucky River in Franklin County, Kentucky. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Kentucky River Lock and Dam
4.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12997-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Kentucky River Lock and Dam 4 and operated
in a run-of-river mode would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and
switchyard; (2) two turbine/generator units with a combined installed
capacity of 10 megawatts; (3) a new 0.1-mile-long aboveground 25-
kilovolt transmission line extending from the switchyard to an
interconnection point with the local utility's distribution system; and
(4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Kentucky River Lock and Dam
4 Project would have an average annual generation of 30
gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit

application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5843 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49249-49252]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22972]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81893; File No. 4-443]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of the Fourth Amendment to
the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures
Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options

October 18, 2017.
    On August 16, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
on behalf of the BATS Exchange, Inc.; Box Options Exchange, LLC; C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Nasdaq BX,
Inc.; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Nasdaq
Options Market, LLC; Nasdaq PHLX, LLC; NYSE American, LLC; NYSE Arca,
Inc.; and the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') (together, the
``Plan Sponsors''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') pursuant to section 11A(a)(3) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to amend the Plan for the Purpose of
Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the
Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (``OLPP'' or ``Plan'').\3\
The amendment would: (1) Change, to a single date from three separate
dates, the earliest date on which new January Long-term Equity
AnticiPation series on equity options, options on Exchange Traded
Funds, or options on Trust Issued Receipts may be added; (2) allow
equity, Exchange Traded Fund, and Trust Issued Receipt option series to
be added based on trading following regular trading hours; (3) make
certain administrative and procedural changes to the processes relating
to options class certifications and by which notice is given under the
terms of the OLPP; and (4) correct a technical cross-referencing error
in section 7 of the Plan.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the amendment from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was
proposed by the American Stock Exchange LLC, Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, International Securities Exchange LLC, the
OCC, Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., and Pacific Exchange, Inc.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13,
2001). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49199 (February
5, 2004), 69 FR 7030 (February 12, 2004) (adding Boston Stock
Exchange, Inc. as a Plan Sponsor); 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR
16393 (March 27, 2008) (adding Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC as a Plan
Sponsor); 61528 (February 17, 2010), 75 FR 8415 (February 24, 2010)
(adding BATS Exchange, Inc. as a Plan Sponsor); 63162 (October 22,
2010), 75 FR 66401 (October 28, 2010) (adding C2 Options Exchange
Incorporated as a Plan Sponsor); 66952 (May 9, 2012), 77 FR 28641
(May 15, 2012) (adding BOX Options Exchange LLC as a Plan Sponsor);
67327 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR 40125 (July 6, 2012) (adding Nasdaq OMX
BX, Inc. as a Plan Sponsor); 70765 (October 28, 2013), 78 FR 65739
(November 1, 2013) (adding Topaz Exchange, LLC as a Plan Sponsor);
70764 (October 28, 2013), 78 FR 65733 (November 1, 2013) (adding
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC as a Plan Sponsor);
76822 (January 1, 2016), 81 FR 1251 (January 11, 2016) (adding EDGX
Exchange, Inc. as a Plan Sponsor); 77323 (March 8, 2016), 81 FR
13433 (March 14, 2016) (adding ISE Mercury, LLC as a Plan Sponsor);
82 FR 9263 (February 3, 2017) (adding MIAX PEARL, LLC as a Plan
Sponsor).
    \4\ See Letter from the Plan Sponsors to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 15, 2017 (``Transmittal
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The OLPP Participant Exchanges (``Participants'') and the OCC
(collectively the ``Plan Participants'' or ``Plan Sponsors''), have
agreed to amend the OLPP (the ``Amendment''). The purpose of the
Amendment is to: (i) Change the earliest date of introduction of new
January Long-term Equity AnticiPation (``LEAP'') series on equity
options, options on Exchange Traded Funds (``ETF''), or options on
Trust Issued Receipts (``TIR'') to a single date (from three separate
months); (ii) allow equity, ETF, and TIR option series to be added
based on trading following regular trading hours; (iii) make other
administrative changes within the OLPP related to the options class
certification process and the process by which notice is given under
the terms of the OLPP and (iv) fix a technical error in the section
related to new plan sponsors.

January LEAPs Series

    The Plan Participants propose to change the earliest possible date
on which new January LEAPs series on equity, ETF, and TIR options
classes may be added.
    Section 3(e) of the OLPP currently states, in part, ``With regard
to the listing of new January [LEAPs] . . . the Series Selecting
Exchange and any other exchange that lists and trades the same option
class shall not add new LEAP series on that option class: (i) Earlier
than September (which is 28 months before the expiration), for an
option class on the January expiration cycle; (ii) Earlier than October
(which is 27 months before expiration), for an option class on the
February expiration cycle; and (iii) Earlier than November (which is 26
months before expiration), for an option class on the March expiration
cycle.''
    The Plan Participants propose to remove any reference to an option
class' expiration cycle as it relates to when new January LEAPs series
may be added and replace it with a single date, the Monday prior to the
September expiration. The new language of section 3(e) will state,
``With regard to the listing of new January [LEAPs] . . . the Series
Selecting Exchange and any other exchange that lists and trades the
same option class shall not add new LEAP series on that option class
earlier than the Monday prior to the September expiration (which is 28
months before the expiration).''
    In the past there were operational concerns related to adding new
January LEAPs series for all options classes on which LEAPs were listed
on a single trading day. The addition of new series in a pre-electronic
trading environment was a manual process. Accordingly, the addition of
new January LEAPs series was spread across three months (September,
October, and November).
    Today, these operational concerns related to January LEAPs have
been alleviated as new series can be added in bulk electronically. The
Plan Participants believe that moving the addition of new January LEAPs
series to no earlier than the Monday prior to the September expiration
will reduce marketplace confusion about available January LEAPs series.
Where previously January LEAPs series for options classes on the
February or March expiration cycles would not have been available as
early as January LEAPs series for options classes on the January
expiration cycle, under the proposed change, all January LEAPs series
will be available concurrently.

Option Series To Be Added Based on Trading Following Regular Trading
Hours

    The Plan Participants propose to allow equity, ETF, and TIR options
series to be added based on trading following regular trading hours.
Regular trading hours is defined in Rule 600(b)(64) of Regulation NMS
\5\ as between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, unless otherwise
specified pursuant to the procedures established

in Rule 605(a)(2).\6\ Section 3(g) of the OLPP relates to the listing
of new series. Section 3(g)(i) currently states, in part, ``. . . if
the price of the underlying security is less than or equal to $20, the
Series Selecting Exchange shall not list new option series with an
exercise price more than 100% above or below the price of the
underlying security. However, the foregoing restriction shall not
prohibit the listing of at least three exercise prices per expiration
month in an option class. If the price of the underlying security is
greater than $20, the Series Selecting Exchange shall not list new
option series with an exercise price more than 50% above or below the
price of the underlying security. The price of the underlying security
is measured by: (1) For intra-day add-on series and next-day series
additions, the daily high and low of all prices reported by all
national securities exchanges; (2) for new expiration months, the daily
high and low of all prices reported by all national securities
exchanges on the day the Series Selecting Exchange determines its
preliminary notification of new series; and (3) for option series to be
added as a result of pre-market trading, the most recent share price
reported by all national securities exchanges between 7:45 a.m. and
8:30 a.m. (Chicago time).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(64).
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.605(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OLPP does not currently allow for option series to be added
based on trading following regular trading hours. Accordingly, the Plan
Participants are unable to add new option series that may result from
trading following regular trading hours until the morning after the
trading following regular trading hours occurs. Events that occur after
regular trading hours, such as earnings releases, often have a
significant impact on the price of an underlying security. The
inability to add series as a result of trading following regular
trading hours is a burden on public customers and the members or
participants of the Plan Participants as they do not know what options
series will be available until markets open the following day.
    The Plan Participants propose to add a 4th category by which the
price of an underlying security may be measured. The proposed language
states, ``for option series to be added based on trading following
regular trading hours, the most recent share price reported by all
national securities exchanges between 3:15 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Chicago
Time).''
    The proposed addition will allow for the listing of options series
to be more contemporaneous with market events in that it will now allow
listing based on trading following regular trading hours, in addition
to pre-market and intra-day trading. Currently, options series may not
be added based on trading following regular trading hours and need to
wait until pre-market trading, beginning at 7:45 a.m. (Chicago Time)
the following day to be added. Under the proposed rule, option series
to be added based on trading following regular trading hours may be
added as early as 3:15 p.m. (Chicago Time) the day the trading
following regular trading hours occurs. The proposed rule will not
affect when new series additions will be available for trading. Option
series added based on trading following regular trading hours will be
available for trading on the open of the regular trading session (i.e.
8:30 a.m. Chicago Time) on the options markets the following day (along
with any series added as the result of pre-market trading activity).
    Allowing option series to be added based on trading following
regular trading hours will provide investors with additional notice
regarding the option series that will be available for trading the
following day. Earlier notice regarding what options series will be
available for trading the following day will allow investors to plan
their option trading activity earlier and accordingly help perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national markets system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.

Administrative Changes to Class Certification and Notice Processes

    Finally, the Plan Participants propose to make other administrative
changes related to the notification process whereby OCC confirms
certifications received each day and the means of submission for
listing certifications to OCC.
    Currently, section 1 of the OLPP, which describes the certification
process, requires OCC to provide daily to each Participant a customized
email confirming the option classes newly certified for trading, if
any, by that Participant. Similarly, OCC must notify each Participant
daily of all options a Participant previously certified for trading
that were subsequently certified by another Participant on that day.
    Although OCC is required to email the Participants such
notifications, a list of all certifications received and processed each
day is made available to the public on the OCC Web site. Since the
daily list of options certifications is made publicly available under
the current practice, the Plan Participants propose to streamline the
process by replacing the existing requirement for customized email
notifications with a requirement for a daily general notification from
OCC to all Participants to inform them that the daily list of
certifications is viewable on the OCC Web site. To codify such changes
and consolidate repetitive language regarding the certificate
submission and notification process contained in section 1 of the OLPP,
the Plan Participants propose to modify section 1 as follows.
    Specifically, the current sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c) are to be
replaced by a new section 1(c), and the content of current section
1(b)(i) is maintained in its entirety, with the exception of the
removal of ``option symbol'' in the last sentence,\7\ as new section b.
The current sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c) contain identical time frame
requirements for OCC to provide notification to exchanges daily for new
listing certifications and listing certifications for which one
exchange is certifying an option that is already traded by another
exchange (``adds to existing certifications''). In lieu of describing
the 1:00 p.m. notification time line twice as stated in current
sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c), the proposed new section 1(c) provides the
same time frame requirement (1:00 p.m. Chicago time) in one
consolidated location in the OLPP that is applicable to both new
listing certifications and adds to existing certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The last sentence of current section 1(b)(i), which states,
``The option symbol, initial exercise prices, the expiration cycle
and position and exercise limits* for the selected option class
shall be as provided in the Certificate that OCC determined to be
the first submitted;'' will be modified to eliminate ``option
symbol'' from this provision. With the implementation of the Options
Symbology Initiative in 2010, options generally have the same symbol
as the underlying security. As a result, Participants no longer
submit conflicting option symbols for new certifications, as was the
case prior to 2010. The language ``option symbol'' is removed only
from the last sentence which addresses the submission of conflicting
option symbols by different Participants. The requirements to
provide an option symbol elsewhere in section 1(b) and new section
1(c) will remain and are necessary as such information is needed to
identify an option for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an associated change to the consolidation of the notification
timing requirements to Participants, the language describing the
customized email notifications sent by OCC has been excluded from new
section (c) because, as discussed above, customized emails will no
longer be required. In addition, certain details required in the
current customized email notifications will not specifically be
provided on the OCC Web site in the area designated for daily listing
certifications as such information will instead be available on other
portions of the OCC Web site or will be viewable to Participants
through

OCC's system. Proposed section 1(c) requires the portion of the OCC Web
site designated for daily listing certifications to provide the name of
the underlying security, the option symbol and Selecting Exchange(s)
for selected options on that day.\8\ Other option attributes, in
particular the initial exercise prices and position and exercise limits
for a selected option class currently included in the daily customized
email notifications sent by OCC, will instead be available on other
areas of the OCC Web site where such information is currently found
today.\9\ The expiration cycle, which is also currently included in the
customized email notifications but is not located on the OCC Web site
designated for daily listing certifications, is also currently viewable
to Participants through OCC's system.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Daily listing certifications can be viewed on the OCC Web
site at https://www.theocc.com/market-data/series/new-listings/.
    \9\ Exercise prices can be found on the OCC Web site at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/series-added-today and https://www.theocc.com/webapps/series-search. Position and exercise limits
can be found at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/position-limits. Such
information will be available to the public on these Web sites for a
selected option class on the day the option class commences trading,
as is the case currently.
    \10\ Functionality currently available through a portion of
OCC's clearing system allows option exchanges to view option
attributes, including series and expiration cycle for options. Plan
Participants currently obtain expiration cycle information from the
customized email notifications or by accessing such information in
OCC's system. The posting of daily listing certifications on the OCC
Web site does not presently include expiration cycles and will not
under the new process. Such information will be accessed by
Participants if needed through OCC's system as they can do
currently. Expiration cycle can also be inferred from the public Web
site through examination of series data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the deletion of repetitive language discussed above, the
Plan Participants propose new section 1(d) to consolidate nearly
duplicative language contained in current sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c)
regarding when an option may begin trading. The new section 1(d) states
that trading for an option symbol submitted to OCC for certification on
a given day may begin on the first trading day after submission. This
provision applies to both new listing certifications and adds to
existing certifications, thereby eliminating repetitive language in
current sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c).
    Likewise, Plan Participants are proposing the addition of new
section 1(e) to consolidate and amend nearly duplicative language
contained in current sections 1(b)(ii) and 1(c) regarding the
withdrawal of a certification. As is the case currently, new section
1(e) specifies that a Participant may withdraw a certification by
notifying OCC prior to the time when OCC sends the daily email
notification to Participants. If an exchange notifies OCC of a
withdrawal after the daily notification has been sent, OCC will send an
updated notification to all Participants to inform them of the change
to that day's certifications. The communication for an updated
notification to all Participants is a change from the existing process
under the OLPP whereby currently only exchanges that have also
certified the withdrawn option will be notified. This change reflects
the intended departure from customized email notifications. Such
customized emails are no longer needed since the information is
publicly available on the OCC Web site.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Daily listing certifications are located at https://www.theocc.com/market-data/series/new-listings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan Participants also propose to streamline the means of
certification submission as contained in section 5 of the OLPP.
Currently, section 5 provides that all class certificates must be
submitted to OCC through telefacsimile. To modernize the process, Plan
Participants are proposing to amend this language to state that class
certificates and any associated information and/or documentation must
be submitted via ``such electronic means reasonably agreed upon among
the Plan Sponsors.'' Participants will agree annually as to the means
for such communications. Each Participant will document in writing
agreement to such means and submit such documentation to OCC. It is
anticipated that Plan Participants will use functionality provided by
OCC's system as the electronic means for submission of listing
certifications and any documents associated with such certifications.
    In addition, the Plan Participants are proposing to amend section 5
to describe when a notice is deemed to have been given by electronic
means. The new language in section 5 states ``All other notices
required under the terms of this Plan shall be deemed to have been duly
given if communicated through electronic mail or other electronic means
reasonably agreed upon among the Plan Sponsors. Notices by New Plan
Sponsors (as defined in section 7 below) to then-existing Plan Sponsors
of the execution of the Plan shall be deemed to be duly given if
communicated by electronic mail or other electronic means reasonably
agreed upon among the Plan Sponsors to each Plan Sponsor.'' It is
anticipated that notices by New Plan Sponsors and all such ``other
notices'', which shall include notifications made pursuant to section 2
of the OLPP, will generally be made using electronic mail. Participants
will agree annually to the means for such communications in the same
manner as described above for listing certification submissions.
    The above changes are intended to modernize section 1 of the OLPP
by simplifying and consolidating language that allows for more
efficient processes for certifications as well as for communication.
The Plan Participants recognize that certain requirements of the OLPP
are currently not adaptable to technology advancements. For example and
as discussed above, the Plan Participants have been bound to continue
to use telefacsimile for certification submissions because of the
definitive language in the OLPP. Additionally, resources are currently
allocated to create customized communications to the Participants as
required under the OLPP whereas all such information is available
publicly on the OCC Web site. The Plan Participants believe the
proposed amendments collectively will enhance the certification and
notification processes and will also allow the requirements of the OLPP
to be more adaptable to any future technology improvements that may
make these processes more agile and efficient.

Technical Error in Section Related to New Plan Sponsors

    Section 7(ii) of the OLPP currently states, ``To become a Plan
Sponsor, an amendment to the Plan may be effected by a new Eligible
Exchange executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect (with the only
change being the addition of the new Plan Sponsor's name in section 8
below) and submitting such executed Plan to the SEC. Such amendment
will be effective when it has been approved by the SEC or otherwise
becomes effective pursuant to section 11A of the Exchange Act and Rule
11Aa3-2.'' The reference to the names of new Plan Sponsors being added
to section 8 of the OLPP is incorrect. The names of Plan Sponsors are
contained in section 9 of the OLPP. The Plan Participants propose to
correct this technical error by replacing the reference to ``section
8'' with ``section 9.''

Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

Implementation of Amendment

    The OLPP, as amended, will become effective upon Commission
approval. The Plan Participants will implement the OLPP, as amended,
pursuant to the terms of the Amendment upon Commission approval.

Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed OLPP, as amended, does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. The Plan Participants do not believe that
the proposed OLPP, as amended, introduces terms that are unreasonably
discriminatory for the purposes of section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange
Act.

Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of, or
Participation in, Plan

    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to an interpretation of the Amendment. Section 7 of the OLPP
sets forth how any entity registered as a national securities exchange
or national securities association may become a Plan Sponsor.

Approval of Amendment of the Plan

    The Amendment has been approved by the Plan Sponsors in accordance
with the terms of the plan. Each of the Plan Participants have executed
a signed copy of the Amendment.

Terms and Conditions of Access

    Section 7 of the OLPP provides that any Eligible Exchange, as
defined therein, may become a Plan Sponsor by (a) executing a copy of
the Plan; (b) providing each then-current Plan Sponsor with a copy of
such executed Plan; and (c) effecting an amendment to the Plan as
specified therein.

Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and Charges

    Not applicable.

Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Implementation of Amendment

    The OLPP, as amended, will become effective upon Commission
approval. The Plan Participants will implement the OLPP, as amended,
pursuant to the terms of the Amendment upon Commission approval.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number 4-443 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 4-443. 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 plan that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the plan 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
Plan Sponsors' principal offices. 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 4-443,
and should be submitted on or before November 14, 2017.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22972 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P