[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29725-29729]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97421; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits

May 2, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 21, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 307,
Position Limits.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits,
to adopt new paragraph (g) to codify the process for adjusting position
limits as a result of a stock split \3\ or reverse stock split \4\ in
the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A stock split is a corporate action in which a company
issues additional shares to shareholders, increasing the total by
the specified ratio based on the shares they held previously. A
stock split happens when a company increase the number of its shares
to boost the stock's liquidity. Although the number of shares
outstanding increases by a specific multiple, the total dollar value
of all shares outstanding remains the same because a split does not
fundamentally change the company's value. The most common split
ratios are 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 (sometimes denoted as 2:1 or 3:1).
This means that for every share held before the split, each
stockholder will have two or three shares, respectively, after the
split. Example of a stock split, in August 2020, Apple (AAPL) split
its shares 4-for-1. Right before the split, each share was trading
around $540. After the split, the price per share at the market open
was $135 (approximately $540/4). An investor who owned 1,000 share
of the stock pre-split would have owned 4,000 shares post-split.
Apple's outstanding shares increased from 3.4 billion to
approximately 13.6 billion, while the market capitalization remained
largely unchanged at $2 trillion. Adam Hayes, What a Stock Split Is
and How It Works, With an Example, Investopedia (June 7, 2022),
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stocksplit.asp (last visited 4/
17/2023).
    \4\ A reverse stock split is a type of corporate action that
consolidates the number of existing shares of stock into fewer
(higher-priced) shares. A reverse stock split divides the existing
total quantity of shares by a number such as five or ten, which
would then be called a 1-for-5 or 1-for-10 reverse split,
respectively. A reverse stock split is also known as stock
consolidation, stock merge, or share rollback and is the opposite of
a stock split, where a share is divided (split) into multiple parts.
Say a pharmaceutical company has ten million outstanding shares in
the market, which are trading for $5 per share. As the share price
is lower, the company management may wish to artificially inflate
the per-share price. They decide to go for the 1-for-5 reverse stock
split, which essentially means merging five existing share into one
new share. Once the corporate action exercise is over, the company
will have 2 million new shares (10 million/5), with each share now
costing $25 each ($5 x 5). Akhilesh Ganti, Reverse Stock Split: What
It Is, How It Works, Examples, Investopedia (July 11, 2022), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reversesplit.asp (last visited 4/17/
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, Exchange Rule 307(d) provides that position limits shall
be determined in the following manner: (1) a 25,000 contract limit
applies to those to those options having an underlying security that
does not meet the requirements for a higher option contract limit; (2)
To be eligible for the 50,000 contract limit, either the most recent
six (6) month trading volume of the underlying security must have
totaled at least twenty (20) million shares, or the most recent six (6)
month trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at
least fifteen (15) million shares and the underlying security must have
at least forty (40) million shares currently outstanding; (3) To be
eligible for the 75,000 contract limit, either the most recent six (6)
month trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at
least forty (40) million shares or the most recent six (6) month
trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least
thirty (30) million shares and the underlying security must have at
least 120 million shares currently outstanding; (4) To be eligible for
the 200,000 contract limit, either the most recent six (6) month
trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least
eighty (80) million shares or the most recent six (6) month trading
volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least sixty (60)
million shares and the underlying security must have at least 240
million shares currently outstanding; (5) To be eligible for the
250,000 contract limit, either the most recent six (6) month trading
volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least 100
million shares or the most recent six (6) month trading volume of the
underlying security must have totaled at least seventy-five (75)
million shares and the underlying security must have at least 300
million shares currently outstanding.
    The Rule also provides that, every six (6) months, the Exchange
will review the status of underlying securities to determine which
limit should apply. A higher limit will be effective on the date set by
the Exchange, while any change to a lower limit will take effect after
the last expiration then trading, unless the requirement for the same
or a higher limit is met at the time of the intervening six (6) month
review. If, however, subsequent to a six (6) month review, an increase
in volume and/or outstanding shares would make a stock eligible for a
higher position limit prior to the next review, the Exchange in its
discretion may immediately increase such position limit.\5\
Additionally, Interpretations and Policies .01 of the Rule establishes
position limits that exceed the highest limit (250,000 contracts)
available by Rule for certain underlying securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 307(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has
recognized that position limits (and exercise limits) serve as a
regulatory tool designed to address potential manipulative schemes and
adverse market impact surround [sic] the use of options. In the past,
the Commission has stated that: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47346 (February 11,
2003), 68 FR 8316 (February 20, 2003) (SR-CBOE-2002-26) (Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1 to the
Proposed Rule Change Increasing Position and Exercise Limits for
Options on the DIAMONDS Trust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the inception of standardized options trading, the options
exchanges have had rules limiting the aggregate number of options
contracts that a member or customer may hold or exercise. These
position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment
of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to
manipulate the underlying market so as to benefit the option position,
or that might contribute to disruptions in the underlying market. In
addition, such limits serve to reduce the possibility of disruption in
the options market itself, especially in illiquid options classes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93525 (November 4,
2021), 86 FR 62584 (November 10, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-029) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments Nos.
1, 2, and 3, To Increase Position Limits for Options on Two
Exchange-Traded Funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to amend its position limit rule,
Exchange Rule 307, to codify and make permanent the position limit
changes that currently

occur when an underlying security undergoes a corporate stock split.
Currently, when an underlying undergoes a stock split, its position
limit is adjusted by the Options Clearing Corporation by the factor of
the split.\8\ For example, an underlying that has a position limit of
250,000 contracts that undergoes a four-for-one stock split will have a
new position limit of 1,000,000 contracts. However, while the stock
split is a permanent corporate action in the underlying, the position
limit adjustment is temporary and lasts only until the time that the
last option listed at the time the stock split occurred expires.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange does not believe that the OCC immediately
adjusts position limits for reverse stock splits.
    \9\ It is the Exchange's understanding and belief that this is
the OCC's process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this issue, the Exchange proposes to similarly apply the
adjustment factor to the current position limit, by adopting paragraph
(g), Corporate Actions, to Exchange Rule 307, and new subparagraph
(g)(1) to describe the Exchange's process for handling stock splits.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (g)(2) to
describe the Exchange's process for handling reverse stock splits.
    Specifically, new subparagraph (g)(1) will provide that the
position limit that was in effect at the time of the stock split shall
be adjusted by multiplying the current position limit value in effect
for the underlying by the stock split ratio.\10\ The Exchange also
proposes to include an example in its rule text to illustrate the
operation of the rule by stating, if the current position limit is
250,000 contracts and there is a four-for-one (4:1) stock split in the
underlying, the new position limit would be 1,000,000 contracts (4 x
250,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, new subparagraph (g)(2) will provide that the position
limit that was in effect at the time of the reverse stock split shall
be adjusted by dividing the current position limit value in effect for
the underlying by the reverse stock split ratio.\11\ The Exchange also
proposes to include an example in its rule text to illustrate the
operation of the rule by stating, if the current position limit is
250,000 contracts and there is one-for-two (1:2) reverse stock split in
the underlying, the new position limit would be 125,000 contracts
(250,000/2). The Exchange also proposes to adopt rule text to provide
that the new position limit will be the greater of the adjusted
position limit or the lowest position limit defined in paragraph (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Exchange Rule 307(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal presents a logical approach
to addressing stock splits in underlying securities as it maintains the
integrity of the position limit to shares outstanding ratio, both pre
and post-split, and promotes consistency and stability in the
marketplace. For example, a position limit of 250,000 contracts on an
underlying security that has 4,000,000,000 shares outstanding
represents control of 25,000,000 shares or 0.625% of the total shares
outstanding. If the underlying security has a four-for-one stock split,
the number of shares outstanding would increase to 16,000,000,000.
Therefore, to maintain the same position limit to shares outstanding
ratio the position limit should accordingly increase fourfold to
1,000,000 contracts, where control of 100,000,000 shares would
represent control of 0.625% of the total shares outstanding.
    Currently, the scenario described above occurs when there is a
stock split, however, when the last option listed at the time of the
stock split expires, the position limit is re-evaluated in accordance
to the criteria described in Exchange Rule 307(d)(1)-(5), (where the
maximum contract limit is 250,000),\12\ and the position limit is
permanently re-adjusted in accordance to the Rule. However, the
reversion of the position limit, even to the maximum limit of 250,000
contracts, unnecessarily restricts trading by imposing a stricter
position limit relative to the number of shares outstanding post-stock
split than existed pre-stock split. The Exchange's proposal will
maintain the position limit ratio to shares outstanding so that the
pre-split ratio and post-split ratio are identical, and will eliminate
any market disruptions that may occur as a result of the current
process for handling stock splits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Rule 307(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend 307(e) to facilitate
the six month reevaluation process on underlyings that have undergone a
split. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the split factor be
used for analysis purposes under paragraph (d) of Rule 307. The
Exchange proposes to adopt rule text that will provide that, for
underlying securities whose position limit has been adjusted pursuant
to proposed paragraph (g), the split factor shall be used for analysis
under paragraph (d). For example, under Exchange Rule 307(d)(5) to be
eligible for the 250,000 contract limit, either the most recent six (6)
month trading volume of the underlying security must have totaled at
least 100 million shares or the most recent six (6) month trading
volume of the underlying security must have totaled at least seventy-
five (75) million shares and the underlying security must have at least
300 million shares currently outstanding. Under the Exchange's proposal
to use the split factor for analysis under paragraph (d), in the event
of a four-for-one split in the underlying each threshold would be
increased by the split factor and increased fourfold. Therefore the
first test would require a six month trading volume of 400 million
shares (100,000,000 x 4), and the second test would require a six month
trading volume of 300 million shares (75,000,000 x 4) and the
underlying security would be required to have at least 1,200,000,000
shares currently outstanding (300,000,000 x 4). The Exchange proposes
to take a similar approach with reverse stock splits, and proposes to
adopt rule text to provide that, for reverse stock splits, the split
factor would be similarly applied and used as a divisor in the
calculations rather than as a multiplier.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (3)
to paragraph (g) to state that, for the purposes of paragraph (g), the
term ``stock'' shall pertain solely to equity securities and not be
inclusive of Exchange Traded Funds. Rule 307 provides position limits
for both equity securities and Exchange Traded Funds,\13\ and the
Exchange's believes that adopting this rule text provides specificity
regarding the scope of the Exchange's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Interpretations and Policies .01 of Rule 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal provides a uniform and
consistent approach for reevaluating position limits for underlyings
that were subject to a stock split, as the split factor is properly
applied (multiplied for share splits and divided for reverse share
splits) to each threshold value under paragraph (d) to establish the
proper position limit.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in

regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general protect investors and the public
interest because it provides a method for addressing position limit
changes as a result of stock splits occurring in the underlying
instrument. Currently, position limits are adjusted at the time of the
stock split but revert back to the original position limit when the
last listed option at the time of the split expires, which does not
benefit investors or the public interest, as the original position
limit is no longer meaningfully related to the current shares
outstanding. The Exchange also believes that clarifying that its
proposal applies only to equity stocks and not to Exchange Traded Funds
will avoid investor confusion.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices as the proposal
maintains the established position limit relative to shares outstanding
pre and post stock split. The Exchange believes its proposal promotes
just and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
and processing information with respect to transactions in securities,
as the proposal provides a defined calculation in the Exchange's rule
to account for stock splits in underlying securities. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes a corollary method for handling reverse stock split
that employs similar logic.
    The Exchange notes that the industry recently experienced an issue
with a stock split in Apple Inc. (``AAPL'') that this proposal is
tangentially designed to address. In August of 2020, AAPL underwent a
four-for-one stock split. Prior to the stock split there were
approximately 4,000,000,000 shares of AAPL outstanding \16\ and the
position limit for AAPL was 250,000 contracts (25,000,000 shares). On
August 28, 2020, the Options Clearing Corporation (the ``OCC'')
published a Memo indicating that effective August 31, 2020, a contract
multiplier of 4 and a strike divisor of 4 would be applied to AAPL
contracts and strikes.\17\ The OCC also adjusted the position limit for
AAPL by the same factor, setting the equity position limit to
100,000,000 shares (1,000,000 contracts). Position limits are published
daily by the OCC on its website.\18\ However, when the last AAPL option
listed at the time of the stock split in 2020 expired in 2022, the OCC
reverted back to the original equity position limit for AAPL of
25,000,000 shares (250,000 contracts). Although this position limit
technically adheres to Exchange rules,\19\ it is more restrictive than
the original position limit. Prior to the stock split AAPL had
approximately 4,000,000,000 shares outstanding and the position limit
of 250,000 contracts represented control of 25,000,000 shares or 0.625%
of the shares outstanding. After the stock split AAPL had approximately
16,000,000,000 shares outstanding.\20\ The immediate adjustment of the
position limit from 250,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts reflects
control of 100,000,000 shares or 0.625% of the shares outstanding which
retains the pre-stock split ratio. Re-adjusting the position limit back
to 25,000,000 shares (250,000 contracts) when there are 16,000,000,000
shares outstanding reduces the position limit to 0.156% of the shares
outstanding, making the post-stock split position limit more
restrictive than the pre-stock split position limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Apple Inc. Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June
27, 2020 states that 4,275,634,000 shares of common stock were
issued and outstanding as of July 17, 2020.
    \17\ See OCC Memo #47509, Apple Inc.--4 for 1 Stock Split
(August 28, 2020) available on its public website at https://infomemo.theocc.com/infomemos?number=47509.
    \18\ See https://www.theocc.com/market-data/market-data-reports/series-and-trading-data/position-limits.
    \19\ See Exchange Rule 307(e).
    \20\ Apple Inc. Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June
25, 2022, states that 16,070,752,000 shares of common stock were
issued and outstanding as of July 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This reversion to the pre-stock split position disrupts the market
in a number of ways. First, it prevents market participants from
effectively pursuing their trading and investment strategies in the
same fashion as they had pre-stock split as the position limit relative
to shares outstanding becomes more restrictive. Secondly, the reversion
to the pre-stock split position limit introduces an element of risk as
market participants must unwind their post-stock split positions prior
to the occurrence of the reversion back to the pre-stock split position
limit level to remain compliant with position limit rules. Finally, the
reversion of the position limit may negatively impact trading volumes,
as market participants that use option contracts to hedge their risks
will not be able to maintain the same levels of market exposure.
    Using AAPL as an example, pre-split, a market participant could
have had an options position of 250,000 contracts that represented
0.0625% of the total shares outstanding. Post-split, the market
participant could have an options position of 1,000,000 contracts,
which would still represent 0.0625% of the total shares outstanding.
When the reversion back to the pre-split position limit occurs (250,000
contracts) the market participant is forced to reduce its trading
activity as the maximum position limit now represents 0.1563% of the
total shares outstanding. This reduction in trading volume also
represents a reduction in available liquidity. Robust liquidity
facilitates price discovery and benefits competition by improving bid/
ask spreads, tighter bid/ask spreads lead to better execution prices.
Therefore, the reversion to the pre-split position limit negatively
impacts liquidity, trading volume, and possibly execution prices.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed formula for reevaluating
position limits for underlyings that have undergone a stock split or
reverse stock split would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general protect investors and the public interest because it
provides a uniform and consistent approach for re-evaluating position
limits.
    Each option exchange has a similar position limit rule,\21\ and the
minimum position limit value is used by the OCC. The Exchange believes
its proposal will allow each exchange to adopt a similar provision to
their position limit rule to harmonize position limit adjustments as a
result of stock splits in underlying securities. The Exchange believes
this will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating and processing information with respect to transactions in
securities by standardizing the calculation of position limits for
underlying securities that undergo a stock split. All market
participants are able to determine position limits on a daily basis as
each day the Options Clearing Corporation publishes a Position Limit
file. Additionally, the OCC publishes a Position Limit Change file
which reflects position limit adjustments and provides the Start Date
and Starting Position Limit coupled with the End

Date and Ending Position Limit, to alert the industry participants to
position limit changes. Therefore, the Exchange believes that its
proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade
and to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect
to transactions in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See e.g., Cboe Exchange Rule 8.30; Box Exchange Rule 3120,
Nasdaq Phlx, Options 9, Section 13; Nasdaq ISE, Options 9, Section
13; NYSE Arca 6.8-O; and NYSE American Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intra-market competition as the rules of the
Exchange apply equally to all Members of the Exchange and all Members
of the Exchange are required to adhere to the position limits
established by the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is not
competitive in nature. The Exchange believes that all option exchanges
will adopt substantively similar proposals for establishing position
limits for underlying securities that undergo a stock split or reverse
stock split, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit
competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2023-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2023-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do
not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2023-19 and should
be submitted on or before May 30, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09684 Filed 5-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 59063]
[DOCID:fr11oc05-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG05-103-000]

Palomar Energy, LLC; Notice of Filing

October 4, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Palomar Energy, LLC
(Palomar), 101 Ash Street, San Diego, California 92101 filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination
of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the
Commission's regulations. Palomar states that its facility consists of
two gas-fired combustion turbine generators and a steam turbine
generator with a total nominal power output of approximately 550 MW,
currently under construction in Escondido, California.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 21, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5552 Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		December 11, 2007

SUBJECT:	Stationary Spark Ignition Engines using Landfill and Digester
Gas

FROM:	Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.

		Lucy Adams, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO:		Jaime Pagán, EPA Energy Strategies Group

The purpose of this memorandum is to document information gathered on
the operation of stationary spark ignition (SI) engines firing waste
gases such as landfill and digester gas.  Landfill gas is a gaseous
by-product of the land application of municipal refuse typically formed
through anaerobic decomposition of waste materials and is principally
composed of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2).  Digester gas is a
gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment typically formed through the
anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials and is also
principally composed of CH4 and CO2.  A previous version of this
memorandum was developed and is identified in the docket as document ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0058.  This memorandum provides an update to
the previously developed memorandum.

Summary

Various sanitation districts and landfills were contacted for
information on the operation of stationary engines on landfill and
digester gas fuels.  General information was received on the feasibility
of applying aftertreatment controls on stationary engines burning
landfill and digester gas, typical emission levels of stationary engines
burning waste gases, as well as summaries of recent source tests
conducted on engines burning waste fuels.  The information obtained is
summarized in the following sections.

General

Add-on Controls/Pretreatment

	The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)1,2 and the Orange
County Sanitation Districts (OCSD)3 were asked whether add-on controls
were being used on stationary engines burning waste gas and if there had
been any recent advances in the area.  The LACSD said that there are
limited controls currently on these engines and that there have not been
any advances in aftertreatment lately.  There are still problems with
siloxanes.  Removal of siloxanes has been tried, but has either proven
to be ineffective or not cost effective.  The only proven method to
remove siloxanes is activated carbon.  The LACSD provided a recent paper
on siloxanes,4 which concluded that it does not appear that siloxane
removal is cost effective in most cases.  The paper indicated that the
only proven method for siloxane removal currently in commercial
operation is activated carbon.

	The OCSD provided information based on a survey of the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies.  The engines it received data on
(166) used combustion modifications to achieve emission standards.
These included pre-stratified charge, modified ignition timing, changes
in air/fuel ratios, and pre-combustion air injection.  The survey also
indicated that several new engines utilized low emission engines applied
by manufacturers (i.e., Waukesha turbocharged, intercooled engine with
an automatic air/fuel ratio controller).  The OCSD said that to its
knowledge there are only three attempts of installing catalyst to waste
gas fired engines.  The projects use gas pretreatment to eliminate
siloxanes and sulfur.  The OCSD did not have any details on these
installations.  The OCSD added that several facilities have installed
catalysts on their engines, but only use the catalyst when operating on
natural gas (dual fuel engines).  The OCSD is unaware of any full-scale
pretreatment systems operating on waste gas fired engines.  The OCSD
indicated that LACSD performed some testing a couple of years ago on
pretreatment options.  The OCSD believed that the study indicated that
activated carbon was the best option; however, the OCSD did not believe
the pretreatment system was implemented.

Engine Type

	The sanitation districts were also asked what type of engines are
typically used to burn landfill and digester gas.  The LACSD said that
most (possibly all) landfill gas engines are lean burn engines, but that
in wastewater there are some rich burn engines that are used.  In
California and other places where air emissions are important, only
Caterpillar 3616 and Caterpillar 3520 generator sets can reliably meet
best available control technology (BACT).  The LACSD also indicated that
lean burn engines have been the preferred choice for landfill and
digester gas applications because these engines have the lowest nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions without post-combustion control.

Emission Levels

	The LACSD indicated that BACT in southern California is 0.60 grams per
brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for NOx, 2.1 g/bhp-hr for carbon
monoxide (CO), and a 98 percent volatile organic compounds (VOC)
reduction or 20 ppm limit as hexane (U.S. NSPS), but that the limits
vary across California and the U.S. a lot.  The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) requires 0.60 g/bhp-hr for NOx, 2.5
g/bhp-hr for CO, and 0.80 g/bhp-hr for VOC.  Emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from landfill and digester gas engines are not
different from natural gas engines, i.e., primarily formaldehyde in the
range of <1 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to >40 ppmv, according to
LACSD.

Sulfur

	The LACSD indicated that sulfur can be very high, in the 1,000 ppmv
range, if not controlled.  Hydrogen sulfide can range from near zero to
2 percent.  The SCAQMD limits sulfur to 40 ppmv for large digester gas
producers.  Sulfur content of landfill gas is normally about 60 ppmv.
The SCAQMD limits landfill gas sulfur to 150 ppmv.

Source Tests

Kiefer Landfill

Alpha-Gamma became aware of a landfill gas to energy project in
Sacramento through contact with the LACSD and was able to obtain test
data from the County of Sacramento’s Department of Waste Management &
Recycling.5  Three Caterpillar 3616 generator sets were installed at the
Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California in 1999.  The engines are
4,230 horsepower (hp) driving 3.05 megawatt (MW) electrical generators
fueled by landfill gas.  Testing was conducted in 2000 through 2004 and
a summary of emission results are shown in Attachment 1.

Simi Valley Landfill

	The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District indicated that there
are two new landfill gas fired engines in operation at the Simi Valley
Landfill in Simi Valley, California and provided EPA with recent test
results of these engines.6,7  The engines are Deutz Model TBG 620 V16K
and 1,877 hp in size.  The engines are turbocharged and aftercooled lean
burn engines.  The generators produce up to 1.35 MW.  The engines were
tested in 2004 and 2005 and a summary of the test results is provided in
Attachment 1.

South Coast

	Alpha-Gamma contacted the SCAQMD and the Toxics & Waste Management
Division provided the summary pages of several stationary engines
recently tested.8  A summary of each facility that summary test results
were received for is provided below.  A summary of the test results
received for the facilities described below is provided in Attachment 1
of this memorandum.

Altamont Landfill

	Two 1,877 hp stationary Deutz engines were tested at the Altamont
Landfill in California in 2003 and 2004.

City of Sunnyvale

	Two 800 kilowatt (kW) (1,072 hp) stationary engines were tested at the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Plant #733 in the City of
Sunnyvale in 2002.  The fuel is a digester gas landfill gas blend as 20
percent digester gas and 80 percent landfill gas.

Riverside Landfill

	A 1,212 kW (1,624 hp) engine was tested at the Riverside Landfill in
2005.

Bradley Landfill

	Five engines of were tested at the Bradley Landfill at various times
between 2003 and 2005 for various pollutants.  Engines 1 and 2 are 1,250
kW (1,675 hp).  Engine 5 is 1,350 kW (1,809 hp).  Engines 1 and 2 were
retested for total particulates in 2003.

Lopez Canyon Landfill

	Two landfill gas fired engines at the Lopez Canyon Landfill were tested
every year starting in 2001 through 2005.  The size of the engines was
not provided in the information received.

Olinda Alpha Landfill

	Two stationary landfill gas fired engines located at the Ridgewood
Power Management Facility at the Olinda Alpha Landfill were tested in
2002.  The engines are 1,743 hp Deutz engines driving 1,250 kW
electrical generators.  These engines are equipped with a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) to continuously record NOx and oxygen
(O2).  The purpose of the testing was to determine the relative accuracy
of the CEMS and to satisfy source test requirements mandated by the
SCAQMD.  The landfill gas fuel contained 43.3 percent CH4 and 33.1 ppmv
total reduced sulfur (TRS) and 42.2 percent CH4 and 31.2 ppmv TRS, for
unit 1 and 2, respectively.

City of Riverside

	Three 1,599 hp stationary engines were tested by the City of Riverside
in 2004.

City of Redlands

	A Deutz landfill gas fired stationary engine was tested at the City of
Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2003, 2004, and 2005.  The engine
was rated at 1,350 hp.

El Sobrante Landfill

	Three landfill gas fired 1,280 kW (1,715 hp) engines were tested at the
El Sobrante Landfill.  Engines 1 and 2 were both tested in 2003 and 2005
and engine 3 was tested in 2004.  The size of the engines was not
provided in the information received.

Prima Deshecha Landfill

	Two landfill gas fired engines were tested at the Prima Desheca
Landfill in 2001, 2002, and 2003.  A compliance test and a relative
accuracy test audit were also conducted in 1999.

DuPage County, Illinois

Woodridge-Greene Valley

	Alpha-Gamma identified a cogeneration facility providing power to the
Woodridge-Greene Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant.9  The engine runs on
a blend of diesel fuel, natural gas, and CH4 generated at the wastewater
plant.  The engine is a Fairbanks Morse Enviro-DesignTM 2,100 hp engine
emitting 1 g/bhp-hr of NOx.

Additional Source Tests

	After the proposed rule was published, an additional six landfill power
generator test reports were obtained.  The Arcadis landfills are located
in the northeast and Midwest U.S., the Minnesota Methane landfill in
California, and the remaining three landfills are in Canada. Information
from those reports is summarized below and in Attachment 2.

Arcadis Landfill A

Landfill A fires landfill gas in a bank of four engine generator sets in
order to destroy the landfill gas and to generate electricity.10  The
engines are Caterpillar CAT 3412 four-stoke engines, adapted for
landfill gas.  The CAT 3412 is a spark-ignited V-12 engine with a
displacement of 1,649 cubic inches.  It is turbocharged and
after-cooled, and has a cylinder bore diameter of 5.4 inches and a
stroke of 6.0 inches.  It is connected to a Caterpillar SR4 Generator,
which is rated at 470 KW.  Testing of Engine #2 took place on November 1
and 2, 2002.

Arcadis Landfill C

Landfill C collects landfill gas, pipes it to a bank of two Caterpillar
generator-sets for destruction of LFG and generation of electricity.11
The engines are Caterpillar CAT 3516 four-stoke SI engines, adapted for
landfill gas fuel. The CAT 3516 is a spark-ignited V-16 engine with
4,210 cubic inches displacement.  It is turbocharged and after-cooled,
and has a 6.7-inch diameter cylinder bore and a 7.5-inch stroke.  It
drives a Caterpillar SR4 Generator, which is rated at 800 KW (at a 0.8
power factor).  The engines have no pollution control equipment
installed.  Engine #1 was tested on May 13 and 14, 2004.

Corona, CA Landfill

This system uses a Deutz TBG 620 V16K, a spark-ignited V-16 engine with
4,320 cubic inches displacement, specifically designed for landfill gas
applications.12  The engine is rated at 1358 KW and 850 HP.  Testing
took place January 28, 1998.

Waterloo Regional Landfill, Ontario

Landfill gases from the Waterloo landfill are used to fire four
Caterpillar model G3516LE gas engines.13  Sampling was conducted on the
exhaust duct of Engine No. 4, a V-16, 4-stroke-cycle spark ignited 925
kW engine. At the time of testing, the No. 4 Engine had 6,400 operating
hours.  Testing took place on September 20, 1999.

Meloche Landfill, Quebec

Landfill gases from the Meloche landfill are used to fire two
Caterpillar 3516 engine generator sets.14  Sampling was conducted on the
exhaust duct of Engine No. 1, a V-16, 4-stroke-cycle spark ignited 812
kW engine.  Testing took place on September 20, 1999.

BFI Usine de triage Lachenaie Ltee Landfill, Quebec

Four engines are used to produce power from Lachenaie landfill gas.15
Sampling was conducted on the exhaust duct of the No. 2 Engine, a
Waukesha Model 7042 GLD 1 MW SI gas engine.  At the time of testing, the
No. 2 Engine had close to 25,000 operating hours.  During testing, the
No. 2 Engine maintained an average load of 957 kW, at 1,365 HP.  Testing
took place on October 1 through 4, 2001.

Summary

	Based on the information gathered and presented in this memorandum, it
appears that few advances have been made towards resolving issues
related to applying catalytic aftertreatment to waste fuel fired
stationary engines.  There are still problems with catalyst fouling by
siloxanes present in the fuel leading to rapid declining performance of
the aftertreatment system.

	Information and test results summarized in this memorandum for landfill
and digester gas fired stationary engines indicate engine-out NOx levels
in the U.S. can vary from about 0.4 to 1.4 g/bhp-hr, although most
commonly test results show NOx levels around 0.6 g/bhp-hr, consistent
with many permit limits.  Test results show that engine-out CO levels in
the U.S. range from about 1.8 to about 2.5 g/bhp-hr, which is also
consistent with permit limits.  For both NOx and CO, test results from
the Canadian landfills were higher.  Formaldehyde levels vary between
0.03 and 0.3 g/bhp-hr based on available test results.

References

1.	Email from Greg Adams, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to
Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  August 29, 2005.

2.	Email from Ed Wheless, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to
Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  August 29, 2005.

3.	Email from Ed Torres, Orange County Sanitation Districts to Tanya
Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

4.	Siloxanes in Landfill and Digester Gas Update.  Paper by Ed Wheless,
Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Whittier, California and Jeffrey
Pierce, SCS Energy, Long Beach, California.

5.	Facsimile from Tim Israel, County of Sacramento Department of Waste
Management & Recycling to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.
October 18, 2005.

6.	Email from Don Price, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

7.	Facsimile from Don Price, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  September 6, 2005.

8.	Letter from Charles Tupac, South Coast Air Quality Management
District to Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies.  November 14, 2005.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.dupageco.org/publicworks/generic.cfm?doc_id=878"
 http://www.dupageco.org/publicworks/generic.cfm?doc_id=878 .  DuPage
County, Illinois.  October 18, 2005.

Source Testing Final Report, Landfill A, Revision 1.  Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M Inc. for U.S.EPA, APPCD.  October 6, 2005.

Source Testing Final Report, Landfill C, Revision 1.  Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M Inc. for U.S.EPA, APPCD.  October 6, 2005.

Compliance Source Test Report Landfill Gas-Fired Engine – Corona, CA.
Prepared by SCEC for Minnesota Methane. March 3, 1998.

Characterization of Emissions from a 925 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – Waterloo Regional Landfill, Waterloo, Ontario.
Report ERMD 2000-04, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. December 2000.

Characterization of Emissions from a 812 kWe Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – Meloche Landfill, Kirkland, Quebec.  Report ERMD
99-05, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. December 1999.

Characterization of Emissions from a 1 We Reciprocating Engine Fired
with Landfill Gas – BFI Usine de triage Lachenaie Ltee Landfill,
Quebec.  Report ERMD 2001-03, ERMD, ETAD, Environment Canada. January
2002.

Attachment 1:  Summary of Source Tests

Facility	Date(s) Tested	Engine 1	Engine 2	Engine 3	Engine 4	Engine 5

Kiefer Landfill	2000

2001

2002

2003

2004	NOx: 0.40 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.77 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 7.3 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.074 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.35 grains/100 dscf	NOx: 0.35 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.95 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 8.6 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.070 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.28 grains/100 dscf	NOx: 0.39 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.83 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 7.9 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

PM10: 0.068 g/bhp-hr

H2S in the LFG: 0.21 grains/100 dscf

Simi Valley Landfill	2004

2005	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.44 g/bhp-hr

ROC: 0.20 g/bhp-hr

Inlet SO2: 35.9 ppmvd

Outlet SOx: 0.04 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.41 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.87 g/bhp-hr

ROC: 0.03 g/bhp-hr

Inlet SO2: 40.82 ppmvd

Outlet SOx: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

	Altamont Landfill	2003

2004	NOx: 0.54 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.9 g/bhp-hr

NMOC (as CH4): 0.3 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.48 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.90 g/bhp-hr

NMOC (as CH4): 0.126 g/bhp-hr

	City of Sunnyvale	2002	NOx: 1.38 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.36 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.018 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 1.38 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.760 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.125 g/bhp-hr

	Riverside Landfill	2005	NOx: 0.554 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.990 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.042 g/bhp-hr

Bradley Landfill	2003

2005 (ROGs only)	NOx: 0.55 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.173 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.16 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates:

0.015 gr/dscf

Total Particulates (Retest 9/16/03): 0.00215 gr/dscf	NOx: 0.58 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.154 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.15 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.02 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates:

0.015 gr/dscf

Total Particulates (Retest 9/16/03): 0.00232 gr/dscf	NOx: 0.53 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.145 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.20 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates:

0.004 gr/dscf

	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.030 g/bhp-hr

TNMHC: 0.17 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.038 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates:

0.004 gr/dscf

	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.358 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.048 g/bhp-hr

Total Particulates:

0.002 gr/dscf

Lopez Canyon Landfill	2001

2002

2003

2004

2005	NOx: 3.97 lbs/hr

CO: 17.3 lbs/hr

Particulates: 0.0052 gr/dscf

TGNMO/NMHC: 9.6 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.14 lbs/hr

TRS/SO2: 15.8 ppmv	NOx: 3.7 lbs/hr

CO: 16.8 lbs/hr

Particulates: 0.0068 gr/dscf

TGNMO/NMHC: 11.3 ppm as hexane at 3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.14 lbs/hr

TRS/SO2: 15.1 ppmv	N/A	N/A	N/A

Olinda Alpha Landfill	2002	NOx: 0.44 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.26 g/bhp-hr

SO2: 0.05 g/bhp-hr

Total particulate: 0.122 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO, as carbon: 0.13 g/bhp-hr

Formaldehyde: 0.276 g/bhp-hr	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.18 g/bhp-hr

SO2: 0.04 g/bhp-hr

Total particulate: 0.113 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO, as carbon: 0.12 g/bhp-hr

Formaldehyde: 0.23 g/bhp-hr	N/A	N/A	N/A

El Sobrante Landfill	2003 (Engines 1 and 2)

2004 (Engine 3)

2005 (Engines 1 and 2)	NOx: 0.56 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.33 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.03 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates:

0.005 gr/dscf

Formaldehyde: 0.62 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2: 5.59 ppmv	NOx: 0.51 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.19 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.033 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates:

0.005 gr/ dscf Formaldehyde: 0.68 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2 : 4.78 ppmv	NOx: 0.595 g/bhp-hr

CO: 2.392 g/bhp-hr

ROGs: 0.052 g/bhp-hr

Total particulates:

0.004 gr/dscf

Formaldehyde: 0.043 lbs/hr

Exhaust SO2: 2.64 ppmv	N/A	N/A

City of Riverside	2004	NOx: 1.63 lbs/hr

CO: 5.23 lbs/hr

SO2: 3.91 ppm @15% O2 or 0.16 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 49.50 ppm @15% O2 or 0.71 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.174 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0167 gr/dscf

or 0.47 lb/hr	NOx: 1.82 lbs/hr

CO: 6.33 lbs/hr

SO2: 3.11 (ppm at 15% O2) or 0.13 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 40.60 ppm @15% O2 or 0.57 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.205 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0151 gr/dscf

or 0.43 lbs/hr	NOx: 1.96 lbs/hr

CO: 4.92 lbs/hr

SO2: 2.10 ppm @15% O2) or 0.09 lbs/hr

TNMHC: 17.25 ppm @15% O2 or 0.26 lbs/hr

Formaldehyde: 0.100 lbs/hr

Total particulates: 0.0028 gr/dscf

or 0.08 lbs/hr	N/A	N/A

City of Redlands 	2003

2004

2005	NOx: 0.57 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.74 g/bhp-hr

TGNMO: 6.3 ppm as hexane @3% O2

TGNMO: 0.05 g/bhp-hr as CH4

Formaldehyde: 0.089 lbs/hr

Exhaust SOx: 0.06 lbs/hr	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Prima Deshecha Landfill	2001

2002

2003	NOx: 26.8 ppm @15% O2

CO: 228.6 ppm @15% O2

NMHC: 26.5 ppm as CH4

NMHC: 11.1 ppm as hexane @3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.110 lbs/hr

SO2: 82.6 ppmv 	NOx: 26.7 ppm @15% O2

CO: 215.7 ppm @15% O2

NMHC: 18.3 ppm as CH4

NMHC: 5.17 as hexane @3% O2

Formaldehyde: 0.116 lbs/hr

SO2: 77.4 ppmv	N/A	N/A	N/A

Notes:

dscf – dry standard cubic feet

TNMHC – total nonmethane hydrocarbons

ppmvd – parts per million by volume, dry basis

TGNMO – total gaseous nonmethane organics

ROGs – reactive organic gases

Attachment 2:  Summary of Additional Source Tests

Facility	Engine Manufacturer	Engine Model	Engine Size	Testing Dates
Testing Results

ARCADIS - Landfill A	Caterpillar	3412	470 KW	2002	NOx: 166 ppmv

CO: 560 ppmv

SOX: 34 ppmv

THC as Propane: 730 ppmv

THC as Hexane: 365 ppmv

ARCADIS - Landfill C	Caterpillar	3516	800 KW	2004	NOx: 2730 ppmv

CO: 568 ppmv

SOX: 0 ppmv

THC as Propane: 940 ppmv

THC as Hexane: 470 ppmv

Corona Landfill	Deutz	TBG	1358 KW	1998	NOx: 1.29 g/bhp-hr

CO: 1.76 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.31 g/bhp-hr

Lachenaie Landfill1	Waukesha	7042 GLD	1 MW	1999	NOx: 1.864 g/bhp-hr

CO: 7.027 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.033 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.021 g/bhp-hr

Meloche Landfill1	Caterpillar	3516	812 KW	1999	NOx: 1.569 g/bhp-hr

CO: 3.728 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.013 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.025 g/bhp-hr

Waterloo Regional Landfill2	Caterpillar	G3516LE	925 KW	2001	NOx: 2.977
g/bhp-hr

CO; 7.121 g/bhp-hr

SOX: 0 g/bhp-hr

VOC: 0.016 g/bhp-hr

PM: 0.025 g/bhp-hr

		1 Located in Quebec, Canada

2 Located in Ontario, Canada

 PAGE

 PAGE   13


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44353-44354]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18782]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83937; File No. SR-NSCC-2018-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Terminate the
Commission Billing Service and the Commission Billing Limited
Membership

August 24, 2018.
    On July 13, 2018, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2018-004, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on July 24, 2018.\3\ The Commission
did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83666 (July 18, 2018),
83 FR 35041 (July 24, 2018) (SR-NSCC-2018-004) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Rules and Procedures of
NSCC (``Rules'') \4\ to terminate the Commission Billing service.
Currently, the Commission Billing service facilitates the payment of
commissions between NSCC's members (``Members'') and floor brokerage
firms \5\ that charge commissions (``Commission Billing Members'').\6\
Commission Billing Members hold a limited membership at NSCC that
allows such firms to participate in NSCC solely for the collection of
commissions.\7\ NSCC tabulates all commission payment records received
on a monthly basis, and either sends amounts to The Depository Trust
Company (``DTC'') for payment (for Members that are also Participants
of DTC) or processes payments through the Automated Clearing House.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \5\ Floor brokerage firms are members of the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') and NYSE American. Floor brokerage firms execute
trades on behalf of their clients for a commission.
    \6\ Notice, 83 FR at 35041.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Notice, 83 FR at 35041-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC proposes to terminate the Commission Billing service and the
associated membership category.\9\ NSCC states that over the years the
volumes of trades handled by floor brokerage firms have decreased,
leading to a significant decrease in the use of this service.\10\ NSCC
states that the reduced volumes of transactions have caused this
service to be provided at a financial loss to NSCC.\11\ Additionally,
NSCC states that due to the use of legacy systems that lack automation
and support features, the service continues to rely on manual processes
and requires personnel involvement, which can lead to errors.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Notice, 83 FR at 35042.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC would implement the proposed changes no later than November
30, 2018.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\14\ The Commission believes the proposal is consistent
with Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(21)(iv) under the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(21)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency, such as NSCC, be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed rule change would terminate the
Commission Billing service and the associated membership category. The
proposed change is designed to eliminate an underutilized service that
takes up NSCC resources (through its reliance on manual operations and
by operating at a financial loss) and is no longer relied on by Members
or the industry. As NSCC would no longer need to divert resources to
the service, the proposed rule change would afford NSCC the opportunity
to redeploy those resources in a manner that could better support
NSCC's other, more utilized clearance and settlement services.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)(iv) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)(iv) under the Act requires a covered clearing
agency \18\ to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and
effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the
markets it serves.\19\ As described above, use of the Commission
Billing service has significantly decreased, as the industry has change
and the service no longer provides the same value that it had
historically. As a result, NSCC currently operates the service at a
financial loss. As such, NSCC has determined that it would be more
efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its Members and
the market NSCC serves to eliminate the service. In doing so, NSCC
would be able to redirect the resources being consumed by the
Commission Billing service to other, more needed services. Therefore,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is designed to help
ensure that NSCC is efficient and effective in meeting the requirements
of its participants,

consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)(iv) under the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A ``covered clearing agency'' means, among other things, a
clearing agency registered with the Commission under Section 17A of
the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1 et seq.) that is designated
systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel
(``FSOC'') pursuant to the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.). See 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(a)(5)-(6). On July 18, 2012, FSOC designated NSCC as
systemically important. U.S. Department of the Treasury, ``FSOC
Makes First Designations in Effort to Protect Against Future
Financial Crises,'' available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1645.asp. Therefore, NSCC is a covered
clearing agency.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(21)(iv).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \21\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2018-004 be, and hereby is,
approved.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18782 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 798]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2082-062; Project No. 14803-000]

Notice of Tribal Consultation Meetings; PacifiCorp, Klamath River
Renewal Corporation

    On September 23, 2016, and supplemented on March 1, 2017, and June
23, 2017, PacifiCorp and the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (Renewal
Corporation) filed an application to amend the existing Klamath Project
No. 2082 to administratively remove the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco
No. 2, and Iron Gate developments from the license and create a new
project, the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803, for those developments.
The applicants also request the Lower Klamath Project be transferred to
the Renewal Corporation which, if the Commission were to approve its
surrender application in a separate proceeding, would then surrender
the project license and remove the above four developments.
    The Commission will hold meetings with representatives of the Hoopa
Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Community, Klamath
Tribes, and Yurok Tribe. Meetings will be held at the following
locations and will begin at the times shown below:

Hoopa Valley Tribe, Tribal Council Chambers, Hoopa Valley Tribe
Neighborhood Facilities, 11860 Highway 96, Hoopa, CA 95546, January 16,
2018, 10:00 a.m. (PST)

Karuk Tribe, Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, 37960 CA-Highway 96,
Orleans, CA 95556, January 17, 2018, 10:00 a.m. (PST)

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation
of California, 13601 Quartz Valley Road, Fort Jones, CA 96032, January
17, 2018, 4:00 p.m. (PST)

Klamath Tribes, Klamath Tribes Administration Building, 501 Chiloquin
Boulevard, Chiloquin, OR, January 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. (PST)

Yurok Tribe, Yurok Tribe Klamath Tribal Office, 190 Klamath Boulevard,
Klamath, CA, January 19, 2018, 10:00 a.m. (PST)

    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceedings
may attend these meetings; however, participation will be limited to
tribal representatives and the Commission's representatives. If any
tribe decides to disclose information about a specific location which
could create a risk or harm to an archaeological site or Native
American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion
of the meeting when such information is disclosed. Each tribal meeting
will be transcribed by a court reporter and the transcript will be
placed in the public record of these proceedings.
    To register for attendance at any of the above meetings, please
contact Jennifer Polardino at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00126 Filed 1-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 68323]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0232]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish
Dealers Certificate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
December 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0021 and
title ``Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish
Dealers Certificate.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate

OMB Control Number 0910-0021--Extension

    Under 42 U.S.C. 243, we are required to cooperate with and aid
State and local authorities in the enforcement of their health
regulations and are authorized to assist States in the prevention and
suppression of communicable diseases. Under this authority, we
participate with State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and
the molluscan shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP).
    NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of
molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of
shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of
shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation
monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for
those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's
criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of
its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038,
``Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.'' We use this information
to publish the ``Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List,'' a
monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish processors
certified under the cooperative program. If we did not collect the
information necessary to compile this list, participating States would
not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed by uncertified
processors in other States and foreign nations. Consequently, NSSP
would not be able to control the distribution of uncertified and
possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and its effectiveness
would be nullified.
    In the Federal Register of August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50640), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                     Activity                         FDA Form No.      Number of      responses per     Total annual   Avg. burden per    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses         response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Interstate Shellfish Dealer's                   3038               40               57            2,280             0.10              228
 Certificate......................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We estimate that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate
Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228
hours (2,280 submissions x 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is
based on our experience with this information collection and the number
of certificates received in the past 3 years, which has remained
constant.

    Dated: October 30, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-28109 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17877-17878]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0140]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American
Pyrotechnics Association

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the American Pyrotechnics Association
(APA) has requested an exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations that require a motor carrier to install and require each of
its drivers use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the
driver's HOS. APA requests the exemption for APA member-companies
currently holding an exemption from the HOS 14-hour rule during the
Independence Day celebration season. If granted, these member-companies
would continue to utilize paper records of duty status (RODS) in lieu
of utilizing an ELD during the designated Independence Day periods. APA
believes that the exemption, if granted, would not have any adverse
impacts on operational safety, as drivers would continue to remain
subject to the HOS regulations as well as the requirements to maintain
paper RODS. FMCSA requests public comment on APA's application for
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2018-0140 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2018-0140), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0140'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The APA reports that it is a national safety and trade association
of the U.S. fireworks industry, representing manufacturers, importers,
distributors, wholesalers, retailers, suppliers and professional
display companies. APA has over 250 member companies. Along with their
subsidiaries, APA's member-companies are responsible for nearly ninety
percent of the fireworks manufactured, imported, distributed and
professionally displayed in the United States.
    According to its application, APA seeks a limited exemption from
the ELD requirements for member-companies currently holding an HOS
exemption from the 14-hour rule to continue to maintain paper RODs in
lieu of utilizing ELDs. Various APA members have held 2-year exemptions
during Independence Day periods from 2005 through 2014. On May 16,
2016, the current exemption for APA members was extended to July 8,
2020, pursuant to section 5206(b)(2)(A) of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (81 FR 28115).
    APA asserts that granting this exemption is appropriate because
there is no basis to believe that continuing to allow paper record
keeping for this limited subset of the regulated community, and for a
limited period of time, would impact operational safety in any regard.
In addition, due to the unique nature of the fireworks industry,
requiring the use of ELDs for this limited seasonal delivery period
would impose a substantial financial burden on members because it would
require them to purchase/lease systems for use for only a short period
every year.
    APA explained that members rely upon intermittent casual drivers
periodically throughout the year and particularly during the busy
Independence Day season when industry depends upon short-term rental
trucks. The fireworks industry is unique in that it rents or leases
approximately 90% of its vehicles throughout the year for less than 30
days at a time. However, most rental companies require a minimum rental
period of 14 to 21 days when APA member companies may only use the
trucks in commerce for up to 11 days. The mix of vehicles rented
includes pick-up trucks, cargo vans, city vans and straight trucks less
than 26,000 GVW. The industry relies heavily upon short-term rental
trucks to transport and deliver 98% of the 16,000 Independence Day
fireworks displays nationwide. If granted, the exemption would run
concurrent with APA's HOS exemption and would expire on July 8, 2020.
This exemption would only apply when the carriers designated in the APA
HOS exemption, including revisions, are operating within the specified
Independence Day periods.
    A copy of APA's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: April 17, 2018.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08506 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P