[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31579-31580]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14458]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33144]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

June 29, 2018.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
June 2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551- 8090. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on July 24, 2018, and should
be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202)
551- 6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC, Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8010.

AB Government Exchange Reserves [File No. 811-08294]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
AB Government Money Market Portfolio, a series of AB Fixed-Income
Shares, Inc., and, on November, 10, 2017, made a final distribution to
its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $201,740
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the
applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 25, 2018, and
amended on June 13, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New
York 10105.

Avenue Mutual Funds Trust [File No. 811-22677]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 14, 2018, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $216,484.42 incurred in connection with the liquidation
were paid by the applicant and the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 25, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 399 Park Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, New York
10022.

Context Capital Funds [File No. 811-22897]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 28, 2018, applicant made liquidating
distributions to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses
of $27,652 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by the
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 15, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 401 City Ave, Suite 800, Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania 19004.

Freshstart Venture Capital Corp. [File No. 811-05169]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
has elected status as a business development company under the Act and
maintains its current portfolio, debts and other liabilities. Applicant
will pay any outstanding or other liabilities as they come due in the
ordinary course of business.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 29, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 437 Madison Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, New
York 10022.

Legg Mason Global Asset Management Variable Trust [File No. 811-22910]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On November 30, 2016, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $4,306 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 23, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 100 International Drive, 7th Floor, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202.

Morgan Stanley Select Dimensions Investment Series [File No. 811-07185]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an

investment company. On September 29, 2017, applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$51,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by the
applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 30, 2018, and
amended on June 14, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.,
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036.

Oppenheimer Global Multi-Alternatives Fund [File No. 811-22760]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 9, 2018, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $11,608 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 6, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way Centennial, Colorado 80112.

Oppenheimer Global Multi Strategies Fund [File No. 811-21918]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 16, 2018, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $14,223 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 12, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way Centennial, Colorado 80112.

Oppenheimer Rochester Maryland Municipal Fund [File No. 811-21878]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 23, 2018, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $11,480 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 12, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way Centennial, Colorado 80112.

Oppenheimer Rochester Virginia Municipal Fund [File No. 811-21884]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 23, 2018, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $12,230 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 12, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way Centennial, Colorado 80112.

PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund, LLC [File No. 811- 22229]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
is liquidating and will make a final distribution, promptly following
its deregistration, on the basis of net assets and pro rata based on
share ownership after payment of any liabilities or expenses in
connection with the liquidation. Expenses of $10,000 incurred in
connection with the liquidation have been paid by the applicant.
Applicant also has retained approximately $1.3 million for the purpose
of paying liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with the
liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 23, 2018, and
amended on June 20, 2018 and June 29, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 3043 Townsgate Road, Westlake Village,
California 91361.

PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund LP [File No. 811- 22228]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
is liquidating and will make a final distribution, promptly following
its deregistration, on the basis of net assets and pro rata based on
share ownership after payment of any liabilities or expenses in
connection with the liquidation. Expenses of $10,000 incurred in
connection with the liquidation have been paid by the applicant.
Applicant also has retained approximately $1.2 million for the purpose
of paying liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with the
liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 23, 2018, and
amended on June 20, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 3043 Townsgate Road, Westlake Village,
California 91361.

Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund [File No. 811-23040]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May 15,
2018, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $443,746 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant and the applicant's
investment adviser and/or an affiliate thereof. Applicant has retained
$121,293 in cash and cash equivalents for the purpose of paying claims
and obligations of the fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 23, 2018, and
amended on June 13, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 200, Winter
Park, Florida 32789.

Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund--Term I [File No. 811-23032]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May 15,
2018, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $393,746 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant and the applicant's
investment adviser and/or an affiliate thereof. Applicant has retained
$108,294 in cash and cash equivalents for the purpose of paying claims
and obligations of the fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 23, 2018, and
amended on June 13, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 200, Winter
Park, Florida 32789.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14458 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71875-71876]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-3595]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Improving the Quality and Representativeness of the
Treatment Center Program Data--Data Modifications to the Current Survey
Instrument Format to Minimize Misclassification

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on a proposed information collection entitled
``Improving the Quality and Representativeness of the Treatment Center
Program Data--Data Modifications to the Current Survey Instrument
Format to Minimize Misclassification.''

DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of
information must be submitted by December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. eastern time at the end of December 18, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-3595 for ``Improving the Quality and Representativeness of
the Treatment Center Program Data--Data Modifications to the Current
Survey Instrument Format to Minimize Misclassification.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this

requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Improving the Quality and Representativeness of the Treatment Center
Program Data--Data Modifications to the Current Survey Instrument
Format To Minimize Misclassification

OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    FDA has a need for valid, high-quality surveillance data on misuse
of pharmaceutical products and use of other substances in the United
States. FDA is funding the evaluation and improvement of the data
validity and reliability of the Researched Abuse, Diversion and
Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS[supreg]) Substance Abuse
Treatment Center Programs Combined (TCPC) survey. The RADARS TCPC is
comprised of two unique programs, the Opioid Treatment Program and the
Survey of Key Informants' Patients Program. These two programs use the
same core paper data collection form and complement each other by
providing information from patients entering both private and public
opioid addiction treatment programs. Patients enrolling in the study
complete a self-administered anonymous questionnaire, within the first
week of admission. The objective of these programs is to provide timely
prevalence estimates of abuse of legal and illegal opioids and other
substances, within the past month, among patients enrolling in
treatment primarily for opioid use disorders. Surveillance data
collected by these programs are used by FDA as well as researchers,
industry, and other public health stakeholders to inform policy and
regulatory decisions. FDA will be providing public health expertise on
the survey validity and reliability questions before implementation to
ensure that they generate quality data. FDA will also be providing its
expert input on the results, analysis, and interpretation, as well as
how the survey may be improved in light of the results.
    This FDA-funded information collection will include three survey
arms, two arms focused on survey validity (is the survey measuring what
it is intended to measure) and the third arm focused on survey
reliability (do the questions consistently produce the same results
when asked at different time points and in a different format). For
both survey validity arms--a digital survey only and digital survey
plus interview arm--volunteer participants will be asked to pause after
answering each survey question to answer a series of content validation
questions concerning comprehension and quality of survey items. Items
assessed will include survey instructions, active pharmaceutical
ingredient and product content, reason for use, and route of
administration. For the survey reliability arm, TCPC paper survey
participants at selected sites will be invited to voluntarily
participate in a second, digital survey, and the results of the two
survey formats will be compared. The data collected through the three
arms of this information collection will be analyzed to validate the
content of a modified TCPC survey and to then determine the reliability
among a proxy population for the target population. Results from the
three arms will inform the format, structure, and wording of the
modified digital TCPC survey, prior to its launch.
    The annual participant burden hours requested are based on the
number of collections FDA expects the contractor to conduct over the
requested time frame for this clearance. FDA estimates the burden of
this collection of information as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
 Type of respondent/interview      Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden     Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses      per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content Validity--Digital                  175               1             175  0.25 (15                      44
 Survey Arm.                                                                     minutes).
Content Validity--Digital                   25               1              25  1.5 (90 minutes)              38
 Survey and Cognitive
 Interview Arm.
Reliability Survey Arm--                   250               1             250  0.33 (20                      83
 Digital Survey.                                                                 minutes).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................             450  ..............             450  ................             165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: October 13, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22966 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33614-33618]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13555]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72325; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Give Up of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder

June 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 23, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the give up of a
Clearing Trading Permit Holder by a Trading Permit Holder on Exchange
Transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 augment its requirements in CBOE Rules
6.21 and 6.50 related to the give up of a Clearing Trading Permit
Holder (``CTPH'') by a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') on Exchange
transactions. By way of background, to enter transactions on the
Exchange, a TPH must either be a CTPH or must have a CTPH agree to
accept financial responsibility for all of its transactions.
Additionally, Rule 6.21 currently provides that when a TPH executes a
transaction on the Exchange, it must give up the name of the CTPH (the
``Give Up'') through which the transaction will be cleared (i.e.,
``give up''). Rule 6.50 provides that every CTPH will be responsible
for the clearance of Exchange transactions of each TPH that gives up
the CTPH's name pursuant to a Letter of Authorization, Letter of
Guarantee, or other authorization given by the CTPH to the executing
TPH. In a recent review of its rules relating to the give up of CTPHs
by TPHs, the Exchange determined that it would be beneficial to further
address and provide additional detail in its rules regarding the give
up process.
Designated Give Ups and Guarantors
    The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.21 to provide that a TPH may
only give up a ``Designated Give Up'' or its ``Guarantor.'' The
Exchange proposes to introduce and define the term ``Designated Give
Up.'' For purposes of Rule 6.21, a ``Designated Give Up,'' is any CTPH
that a TPH (other than a Market-Maker \3\) identifies to the Exchange,
in writing, as a CTPH that the TPH would like to have the ability to
give up. To designate a ``Designated Give Up'' a TPH must submit
written notification, in a form and manner determined by the Exchange,
to the Registration Services Department (``RSD''). Specifically, the
Exchange anticipates using a standardized form (``Notification Form'')
that a TPH would need to complete and submit to the RSD. A copy of the
proposed Notification Form is included with this filing in Exhibit 3.
Similarly, should a TPH no longer want the ability to give up a
particular Designated Give Up, it must submit written notification, in
a form and manner determined by the Exchange, to the RSD. The Exchange
notes that a TPH may designate any CTPH as a Designated Give Up.
Additionally, there is no minimum or maximum number of Designated Give
Ups that a TPH must identify. The Exchange shall notify a CTPH, in
writing and as soon as practicable, of each TPH that has identified it
as a Designated Give Up. The Exchange however, will not accept any
instructions, and not give effect to any previous instructions, from a
CTPH not to permit a TPH to designate the CTPH as a Designated Give Up.
The Exchange notes that there is no subjective evaluation of a TPH's
list of proposed Designated Give Ups by the Exchange. Rather, the
Exchange intends to process each list as submitted and ensure that the
Clearing Trading Permit Holders identified as Designated Give Ups are
in fact current Clearing Trading Permit Holders, as well as confirm
that the Notification Forms are complete (e.g., contains appropriate
signatures) and the OCC numbers listed for each Clearing Trading Permit
Holder are accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market-Maker''
shall refer to Trading Permit Holders acting in the capacity of a
Market-Maker and shall include all Exchange Market-Maker capacities
(e.g., Designated Primary Market-Makers and Lead Market-Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to define the term ``Guarantor'' in the
proposed rule text. For purposes of Rule 6.21, a ``Guarantor'' shall
refer to a CTPH that has issued a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of
Authorization for the executing TPH under the Rules of the Exchange \4\
that is in effect at the time of the execution of the applicable trade.
An executing TPH may give up its Guarantor without having to first
designate it to the Exchange as a ``Designated Give Up.'' The Exchange
also notes that CBOE Rule 8.5 provides that a Letter of Guarantee is
required to be issued and filed with the Exchange by each CTPH that a
Market-Maker desires to clear transactions through. Accordingly, a
Market-Maker shall only be enabled to give up a Guarantor of the
Market-Maker pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.5 and will not identify any
Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., CBOE Rule 3.28, CBOE Rule 6.72, CBOE Rule 8.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed rule change seeks to provide that a
TPH may give up only (i) the name of a CTPH that has previously been
identified and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for
that TPH, if not a Market-Maker or (ii) its Guarantor. This limitation
shall be enforced by the Exchange's trading systems. Specifically, the
Exchange will configure its trading systems to only accept orders from
a TPH which identify a Designated Give Up or

Guarantor for that TPH and will reject any order entered by a TPH which
designates a Give Up that is not at the time a Designated Give Up or
Guarantor of the TPH. The Exchange notes that it will notify a TPH in
writing when an identified Designated Give Up becomes ``effective''
(i.e., when a CTPH that has been identified by the TPH as a Designated
Give Up has been enabled by the Exchange's trading systems to be given
up). A Guarantor for a TPH shall be enabled to be given up for that TPH
without any further action by the TPH (i.e., submitting its name as a
Designated Give Up on the Notification Form). The Exchange notes that
this configuration (i.e., the trading system accepting only orders
which identify a Designated Give Up or Guarantor) is intended to help
reduce ``keypunch errors'' and prevent TPHs from mistakenly giving up
the name of a CTPH that it had no intention of ever using as a Give Up.
Acceptance of a Trade
    The Exchange next proposes to permit a Designated Give Up and a
Guarantor to, in certain circumstances, determine not to accept a trade
on which its name was given up. If a Designated Give Up or Guarantor
determines not to accept a trade, it may reject the trade in accordance
with the procedures described more fully below.
    A Designated Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on which
its name was given up so long as it believes in good faith that it has
a valid reason not to accept the trade. Examples of valid reasons may
be that the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that
particular trade or that another CTPH agrees to be the Give Up on the
trade and has notified the Exchange and executing TPH in writing of its
intent to accept the trade. If a Designated Give Up determines to not
accept (and thereby reject) a trade on which its name was given up, the
executing TPH's Guarantor or another CTPH that agrees to be the Give Up
on the trade shall become the Give Up. Next, the Exchange proposes to
provide that a Guarantor may not accept (and thereby reject) a non-
Market-Maker trade on which its name was given up only if another CTPH
agrees to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the Exchange and
executing TPH in writing of its intent to accept the trade. The
Exchange notes that only a Designated Give Up or Guarantor whose name
was initially given up on a trade is permitted to not accept the trade,
subject to the conditions noted above (i.e., the CTPH or Guarantor that
becomes the Give Up on a rejected trade may not also reject the trade).
Rejection of a Trade
    The Exchange has incorporated into proposed Rule 6.21 procedures
that must be followed in order for a Designated Give Up to reject a
trade. A trade may only be rejected on (i) the trade date or (ii) the
business day following the trade date (``T+1'') (except that
transactions in expiring options series may not be rejected on T+1).
Rejection on Trade Date
    If a Designated Give Up decides to reject a trade on the trade
date, it must first notify, in writing, the executing TPH or its
designated agent, as soon as possible and attempt to resolve the
disputed give up. This requirement puts the executing TPH on notice
that the Give Up on the trade may be changed and provides the executing
TPH and Designated Give Up an opportunity to resolve the dispute in a
manner agreeable to each party. The Exchange notes that a Designated
Give Up may request from the Exchange the contact information of the
executing TPH or its designated agent for any trade it wishes to
reject.
    Following notification to the executing TPH on the trade date, a
Designated Give Up may request the ability from the Exchange to change
the Give Up on the trade. This request must be made by completing and
submitting a standardized form (``Give Up Change Form'') to the
Exchange. A copy of the proposed Give Up Change Form is included with
this filing in Exhibit 3. So long as the Exchange is able to process
the request prior to the trade input cutoff time established by the
Clearing Corporation (or fifteen minutes thereafter, so long as the
Exchange receives and is able to process a request to extend its time
of final trade submission to the Clearing Corporation) (``Trade Date
Cutoff Time''), the Exchange will provide the Designated Give Up the
ability to make the change to the Give Up on the trade to either (1)
another CTPH or (2) the executing TPH's Guarantor.
    A Designated Give Up may change the Give Up to another CTPH (``New
CTPH'') (i.e., a CTPH that is not the executing TPH's Guarantor) only
if that CTPH has agreed to be the give up on the trade and has first
notified the Exchange and the executing TPH in writing of its intent to
accept the trade. To notify the Exchange, the New CTPH must complete
and submit a standardized form (i.e., the Give-Up Change Form for
Accepting Clearing Trading Permit Holders) to the Exchange. A copy of
the proposed Give-Up Change Form for Accepting Clearing Trading Permit
Holders is included with this filing in Exhibit 3. The Exchange notes
that any CTPH may agree to accept a trade from the Designated Give Up
that is rejecting the trade (i.e., the New CTPH does not have to
already be a Designated Give Up of the executing TPH). The Exchange
also notes that a New CTPH that has agreed to accept a trade and become
the Give Up cannot later reject the trade. Requiring the New CTPH to
provide notice to the Exchange of its intent to accept the trade and
prohibiting the New CTPH from later rejecting the trade provides
finality to the trade and ensures that the trade is not repeatedly
reassigned from one CTPH to another.
    The Exchange also seeks to provide that a Designated Give Up may
alternatively change the Give Up to the executing TPH's Guarantor. The
Guarantor does not need to notify the Exchange of its intent to accept
the trade nor does it need to submit any notification or form. The
Designated Give Up however, must first provide written notice to the
Guarantor that it will be making this change. A Guarantor that becomes
the Give Up on a trade as a result of the Designated Give Up rejecting
the trade is prohibited from not accepting the trade/rejecting the
trade. This prohibition provides finality to the trade and ensures that
the trade is not repeatedly reassigned from one CTPH to another.
    A Guarantor may also reject a non-Market-Maker trade for which its
name was the initial given up by a TPH, but only if another CTPH has
first agreed to be the Give Up on the trade and has notified the
Exchange and executing TPH in writing of its intent to accept the
trade. If a Guarantor of a TPH decides to reject a trade on the trade
date, it must follow the same procedures to change the Give Up as would
be followed by a Designated Give Up. The ability to make any changes,
either by the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, to the Give Up pursuant
to this procedure will end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time.
    Finally, once the Give Up has been changed, the Designated Give Up
or Guarantor making the change must immediately thereafter notify the
Exchange, the parties to the trade and the New CTPH of the change in
writing.
Rejection on T+1
    The Exchange next acknowledges that some clearing firms may not
reconcile their trades until after the Trade Date Cutoff Time. A
clearing firm therefore, may not realize that a valid reason exists to
not accept a particular trade until

after the close of the trading day or until the following morning.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to establish a procedure for a
Designated Give Up or Guarantor of a TPH that is not a Market-Maker to
reject a trade on the following trade day (``T+1''). The Exchange notes
that a separate procedure must be established for T+1 changes because
to effectively change the Give Up on a trade on T+1, an offsetting
reversal has to occur (as opposed to merely identifying a different
CTPH on the trade). More specifically, a buy side must be entered by
one CTPH and the sell side must be entered by the other CTPH in order
to effect the moving of the position from one CTPH to another.
    A Designed [sic] Give Up that wishes to reject a trade on T+1 must
first notify the executing TPH, in writing, to try to attempt and
resolve the dispute. Following notification to the TPH, a Designated
Give Up may contact the Exchange and request the ability to enter trade
records into the Exchange's trading system on behalf of itself and
either the New CTPH or the executing TPH's Guarantor, which would
effect a transfer of the trade to the new Give Up. So long as the
Exchange is able to process the request prior to 12:00 p.m. (CT) on T+1
(``T+1 Cutoff Time''), the Exchange shall provide the Designated Give
Up the ability to do so. The request must be made in writing using a
standardized form (i.e., the Give Up Change Form) from the Exchange. In
the event a New CTPH will be accepting the trade as the Give Up, the
New CTPH must also complete and submit the CBOE Give-Up Change Form for
Accepting Clearing Trading Permit Holders. A Guarantor that becomes the
new Give Up on T+1 does not need to notify the Exchange of its intent
to accept the trade nor does it need to submit any notification or
form. The Designated Give Up however, must first provide written notice
to the Guarantor that it will be making this change on T+1.
    An executing TPH's Guarantor that was the initial Give Up on a
trade may also reject the trade on T+1, but may only change the Give Up
to another CTPH that has first agreed to be the Give Up on the trade
and has notified the Exchange (by submitting the Give Up Change Form)
and executing TPH in writing of its intent to accept the trade. If a
Guarantor of a TPH decides to reject a non-Market-Maker trade on T+1,
it must follow the same procedures outlined in subparagraph (f)(iii).
The Exchange again notes that only a Guarantor whose name was initially
given up is permitted to reject a trade (i.e., a Guarantor cannot
reject a trade on T+1 for which it has become the give up as a result
of a Designated Give Up not accepting the trade).
    The ability for either a Designated Give Up or Guarantor to make
these changes shall end at the T+1 Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that
that the T+1 Cutoff Time is 12:00 p.m. (CT) to provide finality and
certainty as to which CTPH will be the CTPH for the trade.
    Once the change to the Give Up has been made, the Designated Give
Up or Guarantor making the change must immediately thereafter notify
the Exchange, the parties to the trade and the New CTPH of the change
in writing. The Exchange notes that the T+1 procedure is not applicable
to trades in expiring options series that take place on the last
trading day prior to their expiration. Rather, a Designated Give Up and
Guarantor may only reject these transactions on the trade date until
the Trade Date Cutoff Time in accordance with the trade date procedures
described above.
    As discussed above, the Exchange is allowing TPHs that are not
Market-Makers to identify any CTPH as a Designated Give Up. Also as
discussed, the Exchange has determined not to take instructions from a
CTPH not to permit a particular TPH from giving up their name so that
the Exchange will not be placed in the position of arbiter between a
CTPH, a TPH and a customer. The Exchange recognizes, however, that TPHs
should not be given the ability to give up any CTPH without also
providing a method of recourse to those CTPHs which, for the prescribed
reasons discussed above, should not be obligated to clear certain
trades for which they are given up. The Exchange accordingly is seeking
to provide Designated Give Ups and Guarantors the ability to, where
appropriate, reject a trade. Ultimately, however, the trade must clear
with a clearing firm and there must be finality to the trade. The
Exchange believes that the executing TPH's Guarantor, absent a CTPH
that agrees to accept the trade, should become the Give Up on any trade
which a Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance with
these proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of
having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Authorization, has already
accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by
the executing TPH. The Exchange however, does not want to prevent a
CTPH that agrees to accept the trade from being able to do so, and
accordingly, the Exchange also provides that a New CTPH may become the
Give Up on a trade in accordance with the procedure discussed above.
Other Give Up Changes
    The Exchange seeks to codify in its proposed rule three scenarios
in which a Give Up on a transaction may be changed without Exchange
involvement. First, if an executing TPH has the ability through an
Exchange system to do so, it may change the Give Up on a trade to
another Designated Give Up or its Guarantor. The Exchange notes that
TPHs often make these changes when, for example, there was a keypunch
error (i.e. an error that involves the erroneous entry of an intended
clearing firm's OCC clearing number). The ability of the executing TPH
to make any such change will end at the Trade Date Cutoff Time.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ After that time, the TPH will no longer have the ability to
make this type of change as the trade will have been submitted to
OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the proposed rule provides that, if a Designated Give Up has
the ability to do so, it may change the Give Up on a transaction for
which it was given up to (i) another CTPH affiliated with the
Designated Give Up or (ii) a CTPH for which the Designated Give Up is a
back office agent. The ability to make such a change will end at the
Trade Date Cutoff Time. The procedures in proposed subparagraph (f) of
Rule 6.21 that were previously described will not apply in these
instances. The Exchange notes that often CTPHs themselves have the
ability to change a Give Up on a trade for which it was given up to
another CTPH affiliate or CTPH for which the Designated Give Up is a
back office agent. Therefore, Exchange involvement in these instances
is not necessary.
    Lastly, the proposed rule provides that if both a Designated Give
Up and a CTPH have the ability through an Exchange system to do so, the
Designated Give Up and CTPH may each enter trade records into the
Exchange's systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in
a non-expired option series from that Designated Give Up to that CTPH.
Likewise, if a Guarantor of a TPH trade that is not a Market-Maker
trade and a CTPH have the ability through an Exchange system to do so,
the Guarantor and CTPH may each enter trade records into the Exchange's
systems on T+1 that would effect a transfer of the trade in a non-
expired option series from that Guarantor to that CTPH. The Designated
Give Up or Guarantor shall not make any such change after the T+1
Cutoff Time. The Exchange notes that a Designated Give Up (or
Guarantor) must notify, in writing, the Exchange and all

the parties to the trade, of any such change made pursuant to this
provision. This notification alerts the parties and the Exchange that a
change to the Give Up has been made. Finally, the Designated Give Up
(or Guarantor) will be responsible for monitoring the trade and
ensuring that the other CTPH has entered its side of the transaction
timely and correctly. If either a Designated Give Up (or Guarantor) or
CTPH cannot themselves enter trade records into the Exchange's systems
to effect a transfer of the trade from one to the other, the Designated
Give Up (or Guarantor) may request the ability from the Exchange to
enter both sides of the transaction in accordance with this amended
Rule 6.21 and pursuant to the procedures set forth in subparagraph
(f)(iii) of that Rule.
Responsibility
    For purposes of the Rules of the Exchange, a CTPH will be
financially responsible for all trades for which it is the Give Up at
the Applicable Cutoff Time (for purposes of the proposed rule, the
``Applicable Cutoff Time'' shall refer to the T+1 Cutoff Time for non-
expiring option series and to the Trade Date Cutoff Time for expiring
option series). The Exchange notes however, that nothing in the
proposed rule shall preclude a different party from being responsible
for the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant to OCC
Rules, any agreement between the applicable parties, other applicable
rules and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise.
Moreover, in processing a request to provide a Designated Give Up the
ability to change a Give Up on a trade, the Exchange will not consider
or validate whether the Designated Give Up has satisfied the
requirements of this Rule in relation to having a good faith belief
that it has a valid reason not to accept a trade or having notified the
executing TPH and attempting to resolve the disputed Give Up prior to
changing the Give Up. Rather, upon request, the Exchange shall always
provide a Designated Give Up or Guarantor the ability to change the
give up or to reject a trade pursuant to the proposed rule so long as
the Designated Give Up or Guarantor, and New CTPH if applicable, have
provided a completed Give Up Change Forms within the prescribed time
period. The Exchange notes that given the inherent time constraints in
making a change to a Give Up on a transaction, the Exchange would not
be able to adequately consider the above-mentioned requirements and
make a determination within the prescribed period of time. Rather, the
Exchange will examine trades for which a Give Up was changed pursuant
to subparagraphs (e) and (f) after the fact to ensure that requirements
set forth in amended Rule 6.21 were complied with. Particularly, the
Exchange notes that the Give Up Change Forms that Designated Give Ups,
Guarantors and New CTPHs must submit, will help to ensure that the
Exchange obtains, in an uniform format, the information that it needs
to monitor and regulate this rule and these give up changes in
particular. This information, for example, will better allow the
Exchange to determine whether the Designated Give Up had a valid reason
to reject the trade, as well as assist the Exchange in cross checking
and confirming that what the Designated Give Up or Guarantor said it
was going to do is what it actually did (e.g., check that the New CTPH
identified in the Give Up Change Form was the CTPH that actually was
identified on the trade as the Give Up). Additionally, the proposed
rule does not preclude these factors from being considered in a
different forum (e.g., court or arbitration) nor does it preclude any
CTPH that violates any provision of amended Rule 6.21 rule from being
subject to discipline in accordance with Exchange rules.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate language in Rule 6.50
that addresses the financial responsibility of transactions clearing
through CTPHs. Financial responsibility is now addressed and clarified
in amended Rule 6.21, and as such, the Exchange believes this language
in Rule 6.50 is unnecessary.
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular, to be published no later
than thirty (30) days following Commission approval. The implementation
date will be no later than ninety (90) days following publication of
the Regulatory Circular. The Exchange notes this additional time gives
TPHs time to provide their lists of all CTPHs that they would like to
designate as ``Designated Give Ups'' and gives the Exchange time to
process those lists and configure its system accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, detailing in the rules how TPHs will give up CTPHs and how
CTPHs may ``reject'' a trade provides transparency and operational
certainty. The Exchange believes additional transparency removes a
potential impediment to, and will contribute to perfecting, the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, will protect investors and the public interest. Moreover,
the Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.21 requires standardized forms
to be used in the designation of Designated Give Ups to ensure a
seamless administration of the Rule. The Rule also requires that CTPHs
submit standardized forms when requesting the ability to reject a trade
and that all notifications relating to a change in Give Up are in
writing. These requirements will aid the Exchange's efforts to monitor
and regulate Trading Permit Holders and Clearing Trading Permit Holders
as they relate to amended Rule 6.21 and changes in give ups, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that in evaluating its give up
rule provisions, it solicited feedback from a variety of market
participants. The Exchange believes that its proposed give up rule
strikes the right balance between the various views and interests
across the industry. For example, although the rule allows TPHs that
are not Market-Makers to identify any CTPH as a Designated Give Up, it
also provides that CTPHs will receive notice of any TPH that has
designated it as a Designated Give Up and provides for a procedure for
a CTPH to ``reject'' a trade in accordance with the Rules, both on the
trade date and T+1. The Exchange recognizes that TPHs should not be
given the ability to

give up any CTPH without also providing a method of recourse to those
CTPHs which, for the prescribed reasons discussed above, should not be
obligated to clear certain trades for which they are given up. The
Exchange believes that providing Designated Give Ups the ability to
reject a trade within a reasonable amount of time is consistent with
the Act as, pursuant to the proposed rule, the Designated Give Ups may
only do so if they have a valid reason and because ultimately, the
trade can always be assigned to the Guarantor of the executing TPH. A
trade must clear with a clearing firm and there must be finality to the
trade. The Exchange believes that the executing TPH's Guarantor, absent
a CTPH that agrees to accept the trade, should become the Give Up on
any trade which a Designated Give Up determines to reject in accordance
with the proposed rule provisions, because the Guarantor, by virtue of
having issued a Letter of Guarantee or Authorization, has already
accepted financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by
the executing TPH. Therefore, amended Rule 6.21 is reasonable and
provides certainty that a CTPH will always be responsible for a trade,
which protects investors and the public interest.
    Lastly, the Exchange notes that amended Rule 6.21 does not preclude
a different party than the party given up from being responsible for
the trade outside of the Rules of the Exchange pursuant to OCC Rules,
any agreement between the applicable parties, other applicable rules
and regulations, arbitration, court proceedings or otherwise. The
Exchange acknowledges that it will not consider whether the Designated
Give Up has satisfied the requirements of this Rule in relation to
having a good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept a
trade or having notified the executing TPH and attempting to resolve
the disputed Give Up prior to changing the Give Up, due to inherent
time restrictions. However, the Exchange believes investor and public
interest are still protected as the Exchange will still examine trades
for which a Give Up was changed pursuant to subparagraphs (e) and (f)
of amended Rule 6.21 after the fact to ensure that the requirements set
forth in the Rule were complied with. As noted above, the use of
standardized forms and the requirement that certain notices be in
writing will assist monitoring any give up changes and enforcing
amended Rule 6.21. Finally, the Exchange notes that the Rule does not
preclude these factors from being considered in a different forum
(e.g., court or arbitration) nor does it preclude any TPH or CTPH that
violates any provision of amended Rule 6.21 from being subject to
discipline by the Exchange.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it will apply equally to all similarly
situated Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange also notes that, should
the proposed changes make CBOE more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become TPHs
on CBOE to take advantage of the trading opportunities.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited nor received comments on the version
of the proposed rule change submitted in this rule filing. As further
described in Item 1 [sic] above, the Exchange has solicited feedback
from a variety of market participants regarding the general subject of
this rule filing.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-048 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-CBOE-2014-048. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-048, and should be
submitted on or before July 2, 2014.

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13555 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                         Proposed
 Certification of Rhode Island State Implementation Plan (SIP) Adequacy Regarding Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2015
                   Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

              Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
                            Office of Air Resources

                        Posted for Public Comment:  xxx
                  Submitted to the EPA as SIP Revision:   xxx
Infrastructure Certification for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

This is the certification by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the existing Rhode Island
State Implementation Plan (SIP) adequately meets the basic (or "infrastructure") requirements of
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

On October 1, 2015, EPA lowered the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb). The CAA requires that all states submit SIPs to meet the requirements of CAA Sections 110(a)(l) and 110(a)(2) within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. This SIP is commonly referred to as an "infrastructure" SIP because its purpose is to ensure that a state's SIP contains the necessary structural elements needed to implement a new or revised NAAQS.

On December 5, 2019, EPA published a Finding of Failure to Submit a Clean Air Act 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2015 NAAQS for seven states that had not submitted SIPs. RI is listed as one of those states. This certification will serve as Rhode Island's SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submittals. Section
110(a)(2) lists the basic elements that all SIPs must contain, including emissions inventories,
ambient air quality monitoring and data systems, programs for enforcement of control measures,
and adequate resources to implement the plan. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) specifically requires that
the Infrastructure SIP prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in downwind states. This requirement is commonly
referred to as the "Good Neighbor" provision.  Appendix A addresses the "Good Neighbor provisions.

Thirteen elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) must be addressed in infrastructure SIPs.  Those elements and the sections of the Rhode Island program that are consistent with those elements are identified in Table 1. The Rhode Island SIP, which was approved in May 1972, and its numerous subsequent revisions fulfill most of these requirements.  Other Section 110(a)(2) requirements are fulfilled by Section 23-23, 23-23.1 and 36-14 of the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) and by Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations contained in Title 250, Chapter 120, Subchapter 5 of the Rhode Island Code of Regulations (RICR) that have been incorporated into or submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. Applicable sections of the above RIGL are appended to this submittal for incorporation into the SIP.

Table 1: Rhode Island's Compliance with CAA
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements

CAA Section
110(a) Requirement
                    Corresponding Rhode Island Requirements
110(a)(2)(A) Emission limits and other control measures
Include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance.
RIGL § 23-23-5  "Powers and duties of the director" authorizes the RI DEM Director "to make, issue, and amend rules and regulations ... for the prevention, control, abatement, and limitation of air pollution....   . The director may prohibit emissions, discharges and/or releases and may require specific control technology."  § 23-23-5 and other applicable sections of      § 23-23, Rhode Island's "Clean Air Act," are appended to this submittal for incorporation into the SIP.

Measures that limit emissions of ozone precursors and the framework for implementation of those measures are found in the following Rhode Island Code of Regulations (250-RICR-120-05):

Part 9  -  Air Pollution Control Permits
Part 11- Petroleum Liquids Marketing and Storage
Part 15  -  Control of Organic Solvent Emissions
Part 19  -  Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Surface Coating Operations
Part 21- Control of VOCs from Printing Operations
Part 25- Control of VOC Emissions from Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt
Part 26- Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
Part 27  -  Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
Part 29  -  Operating Permits
Part 30  -  Control of VOCs from Automobile Refinishing Operations
Part 31  -  Control of VOCs from Commercial and Consumer Products
Part 32  -  Control of VOCs from Marine Vessel Loading Operations
Part 33- Control of VOCs from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
Part 34 - Rhode Island Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program
Part 35  -  Control of VOCs and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Products Manufacturing Operations
Part 36  -  Control of Emissions from Organic Solvent Cleaning
Part 37  -  Rhode Island's Low Emissions Vehicle Program
Part 39  -  Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
Part 43  -  General Permits for Smaller-Scale Electric Generation Facilities
Part 44  -  Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and Sealants
Part 45  -  Rhode Island Diesel Engine Anti-Idling Program
Part 51 -  Control of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing

110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air quality monitoring/data system
Provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures to monitor, compile and analyze ambient air quality data, and to make these data available to the EPA
Section VI of the 1972 RI SIP specifies requirements for the operation of an Air Quality Surveillance Network.

The latest annual air monitoring network plan for Rhode Island was submitted to EPA on July 24, 2020.  As specified in that plan, ozone is currently monitored year-round at the State's East Providence site and March  - September at sites in East Matunuck, Narragansett and W. Greenwich.  NOx is measured  E. Providence, Providence and W. Greenwich. VOCs are measured at sites in E. Providence, W. Greenwich, Pawtucket and Providence. A variety of additional parameters related to ozone formation and transport are also measured at the E. Providence site, which is part of the EPA's NCore and PAMS networks. Data collected by network monitors are reviewed, validated and sent to the EPA air quality system no later than 90 days after the end of a calendar quarter. Air monitoring network plans are compiled and submitted to the EPA annually and include an explanation of proposed changes to the network.

110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement, PSD and NSR

Include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to assure that NAAQS are achieved  The program must  include permitting requirements that meet prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements.
§ 23-23-10, 23-23-11 and 23-23-14 of the RIGL provide DEM with civil and criminal enforcement authorities, including the authority to assess penalties.

250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," sets forth requirements for new and modified major and minor stationary sources.  §9.7 of the regulation contains the requirements for new and modified minor sources.  §9.8 of the regulation contains the new source review requirements applicable to major stationary source or major modifications located in nonattainment areas.  §9.9 contains the new source review requirements applicable to major stationary sources or major modifications located in attainment or unclassifiable areas (PSD).

Rhode Island will amend 250-RICR-120-05-9 as needed, to be consistent with any updates in EPA's PSD requirements within 3 years of promulgation of the Federal amendments and will incorporate the updated modeling procedures into the State's "Air Quality Modeling Guidelines" when they are finalized.

250-RICR-120-05-9 requires minor source installations and modifications with the potential to emit one hundred pounds or more per day, or ten pounds or more per hour of any air contaminant or combination of air contaminants to obtain a preconstruction permit. §9.7.3(A)(1) of that regulation requires BACT for such sources and §9.7.3(A)(4) specifies that emissions cannot "cause or contribute to air pollution in violation of any applicable state or national ambient air quality standard."

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate transport provisions
Include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state.
The RI SIP currently contains adequate provisions prohibiting sources from emitting air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of any NAAQS, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS in RI or in any other state.  RI's SIP also contains adequate provisions to prevent interference with measures by any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility. RI may make changes that it believes in its discretion are appropriate, while continuing to fulfil this obligation.

No source or sources within RI  have been identified as contributing significantly to non‐attainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state or are the subject of an active finding under section 126 of the CAA with respect to ozone or any other air pollutant. Additional demonstration that RI does not contribute significantly to non‐attainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state is provided in Appendix A.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Interstate transport provisions  -  PSD and visibility
Include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with PSD measures or measures to protect visibility in another state.
250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," sets forth PSD requirements for new and modified stationary sources.

The Rhode Island Regional Haze SIP demonstrates that Rhode Island sources do not significantly impact visibility in any downwind Class I area
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and international transport provisions
Provide adequate provisions to prevent endangerment of public health due to interstate and international transport of pollutants.
250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," sets forth PSD requirements for new and modified stationary sources.  §9.16 (C) of this regulation specifies that notice must be provided to any State, Federal Land Manager or Indian Governing Body whose lands may be affected by emissions from a proposed major source

110(a)(2)(E) Adequate personnel, funding and authority

Provide for adequate personnel, funding and legal authority under state law to carry out the SIP and demonstrate adherence to conflict of interest requirements.

§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL provides the Director of DEM with the legal authority to enforce air pollution control requirements.

Section III of the RI SIP specifies the RI DEM's legal authority to implement SIP measures. No other agency or organization participates in the implementation or enforcement of those measures in Rhode Island.

§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL provides for the assessment of operating permit fees from air emissions sources, allows for DEM to assess preconstruction permit fees and establishes a general revenue reserve account within the general fund to finance the state clean air programs.

250-RICR-120-05 28, "Operating Permit Fees," requires major sources to pay annual operating permit fees.

The RI DEM "Rules and Regulations Governing the Establishment of Various Fees" sets forth permit fee requirements for air emissions sources and the legal authority to collect those fees.

In addition to Federal funds and operating permit and preconstruction permit fees, RI DEM receives State funding to implement its air programs, including programs that apply to sources that are smaller than those that are required to obtain operating permits.

Air pollution permits and enforcement orders issued by RI DEM are not subject to review or approval of any state board.

All Rhode Island public officials and employees are subject to Rhode Island's" Code of Ethics", RIGL § 36-14, which includes conflict of interest requirements.  RIGL § 36-14 is appended to this submittal for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP.

110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring and reporting
Establish a system to require stationary sources to monitor emissions and to submit periodic emissions reports and for the state to correlate those reports with emission limits and standards.
Section IV of the RI SIP sets forth an emissions surveillance program.

§ 23-23-5(16) and 23-23-13 of the RIGL requires any facility that emits air contaminants to keep records and submit those records to the Department.

§ 23-23-5(16) of the RIGL provides RI DEM with the authority to require sources to install and maintain monitoring equipment and to maintain records of, and periodically report, information as may be necessary to enable the state to determine whether such sources are in compliance with applicable air pollution control requirements. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 14 (as approved into the SIP) implements that authority.

Under § 23-23-13 of the RIGL and Rhode Island's public records act (RIGL Title 38) emissions data are made available to the public and are not protected as trade secret or proprietary information.

250-RICR-120-05-6, "Continuous Emissions Monitors," requires stationary sources specified in Title 40 of CFR Part 51, Appendix P, parts 1-5, "Minimum Emissions Monitoring Requirements," to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a continuous emission monitoring system and to record and report the total process operating time of the equipment for each calendar quarter to the RI DEM Office of Air Resources. 250-RICR-120-05-6 also specifies that RI DEM will use the resulting CEM data to determine compliance with applicable emission limits and/or operating and maintenance requirements and that the data collected must be kept for at least two years.

250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," allows RI DEM to require emissions testing of a permitted process within 180 days of initial startup and provides that preconstruction permits issued may contain emissions testing requirements. Additionally, the regulation allows RI DEM to require the use of instrumentation to monitor and record emission data. (§9.10(B)(2) & §9.10(B)(6)(d))

250-RICR-120-05-14 "Record Keeping and Reporting" requires emission sources to report annually emissions and other data to RI DEM.

250-RICR-120-05-29, "Operating Permits" requires that all permits contain periodic monitoring sufficient to provide a reasonable assessment of the source's compliance status and, where applicable, compliance assurance monitoring.  All records and supporting information, including "all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation and copies of all reports required by the permit" must be retained for at least five years (§29.10(D)((1)(b)).

110(a)(2)(G) Emergency episodes
Provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment of public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions of the SIP.

Section V of the RI SIP specifies RI DEM's Emergency Episode Authority and Procedures.

§ 23-23-16 of the RIGL allows the Director of RI DEM to order a source to cease operations if it is determined that emissions from the source pose an immediate danger to public health or safety.

 § 23-23.1-5 of the RIGL sets forth specifications for the proclamation of air pollution episodes and issuance of orders.  § 23-23.1-5 of § 23-23.1, Rhode Island's "Air Pollution Episode Control Act" is appended to this document for incorporation into the SIP.

The combination of RIGL §§ 10-1-1, 23-23.1-7, 23-23.1-8, 42-17.1-2, 10-20, and 250-RICR-120-05-7, taken together with RIGL §§ 23-23-16, 23-23.1-5 and 250-RICR-120-05-10, provide authority comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 7603 of the Clean Air Act (Emergency Powers).

250-RICR-120-05-10, "Air Pollution Episodes," specifies criteria for calling and measures to be implemented during air pollution alerts, warnings and episodes.

110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions

States must have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL allows the Director of RI DEM to "make, issue, and amend rules and regulations ..... for the prevention, control, abatement, and limitation of air pollution."

110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public notifications, PSD and visibility protection

Provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers concerning implementation of requirements necessary to attain the NAAQS and to ensure the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection.  States must implement procedures to notify the public if a NAAQS is exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
.
§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL specifies that the RI DEM Director shall "advise and consult with agencies of the United States, agencies of the state, political subdivisions and industries and any other affected groups in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter."

250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," sets for a procedure for public comment on proposed major source permits.  §9.16(C) specifies that notices of public comment periods must be, at a minimum, distributed to:

      C. At a minimum, a copy of the public notice shall be sent to:
            1. The permit applicant;
            2. The Regional Administrator of the EPA;
            3. The chief executives of the city or town where the source would be located;
            4. Any comprehensive regional land use planning agency;
            5. Any State, Federal Land Manager or Indian Governing Body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the proposed source.

250-RICR-120-05-10, "Air Pollution Episodes," specifies criteria for and measures to be implemented during air pollution alerts, warnings and episodes.

RI DEM's website includes near real-time air quality data, air quality predictions and a record of historical data. Hourly data are also sent to EPA's AIRNOW database and are used to prepare regional and national air quality maps. Alerts are sent by email to a large number of affected parties  -  emissions sources, concerned individuals, schools, health and environmental agencies and the media. Alerts include information about the health implications of elevated pollutant levels and list actions that reduce emissions.

The Annual Monitoring Network Plan contains summaries of the year's air quality design values for criteria pollutants.  The summaries are sent to a mailing list of interested parties and posted on the RI DEM website.

250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," specifies requirements for PSD and visibility protection.

110(a)(2)(K)
Air quality modeling/data

Provide for air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.

250-RICR-120-05-9, "Air Pollution Control Permits," requires the submittal of air quality modeling to evaluate the impacts of new and modified major sources on ambient air quality and specifies that the EPA must receive notice of the public comment period that is mandated prior to issuance of a major source permit.

110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees

Require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.
§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL provides for the assessment of operating permit fees and preconstruction permit fees for air emissions sources.

250-RICR-120-05-28, "Operating Permit Fees," requires major sources to pay annual operating permit fees.

The RI DEM "Rules and Regulations Governing the Establishment of Various Fees" sets forth permit fee requirements for air emissions sources and the legal authority to collect those fees.

110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ Participation by affected local entities
Provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP
§ 23-23-5 of the RIGL provides for the RI DEM Director to consult and cooperate with the cities and towns.

                      This page intentionally left blank.
                                  Appendix A

                                         Proposed
               Rhode Island Good Neighbor SIP for the 2015 NAAQS
 Supplement to the Rhode Island Infrastructure SIP for the 2015 NAAQS to Address the Interstate Transport Provision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(1)

Introduction
This state implementation plan (SIP) revision addresses the interstate transport provision under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the "Good Neighbor" provision, for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires that states provide adequate provisions prohibiting emissions from sources within the state in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS. Based on a weight-of-evidence analysis, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) concludes that the existing limits and controls in the Rhode Island SIP are sufficient to ensure that emissions from sources within Rhode Island will not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any area relating to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Background

On October 1, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS lowering the level of both the primary and secondary standards from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 parts per billion (ppb).

Area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS were issued on November 6, 2017, with additional designations issued in April and July of 2018. The areas closest to Rhode Island designated nonattainment are the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area and the New York/Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area.

As previously stated, infrastructure SIPs addressing CAA § 110(a)(1) and (2), certifying the adequacy of the SIP with respect to the revised standard, were due October 1, 2018. The EPA provided guidance in a March 27, 2018 memorandum which described a framework for addressing interstate transport and reviewed relevant modeling results and air quality projections with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In accordance with EPA guidance, this review of modeling results, monitoring data, emissions data, and existing rules and controls supports Rhode Island's negative declaration in relation to its contribution to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other area.

Rhode Island Contribution to Downwind Receptors

The EPA provided information to assist states in developing SIPs to fulfill interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  In a 2015 memo, the EPA stated their intention to use the four-step framework of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) rule. The CSAPR framework adopted to address the "Good Neighbor" provision, and previously used in several federal rulemakings, involves first identifying receptors that are projected to be unable to attain or maintain the NAAQS in the future analysis year, then identifying states contributing to downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors in amounts that warrant further analysis. The Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and subsequent updates provide the results of analyses that may be used to evaluate interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The March 27, 2018 memorandum identified 11 receptors projected to be in nonattainment in 2023 (average design value greater than or equal to 71.0 ppb in the eastern US) and six additional receptors projected to be maintenance receptors in 2023 (maximum design value greater than or equal to 71.0 ppb in the eastern US). These receptors are listed in Table 1with Rhode Island's projected contribution. Rhode Island does not contribute greater than or equal to the one percent significant contribution threshold, 0.7 ppb, to a projected nonattainment or maintenance receptor, or any other area regardless of attainment status. Furthermore, Rhode Island's contribution to ozone in downwind areas has likely decreased in the past several years due to emissions reductions from control programs as described below.

Table 1: Rhode Island contribution to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the eastern US.

 Monitor ID

    State

   County
                                 Average 2023 DV
                                     (ppb)
                                 Maximum 2023 DV
                                     (ppb)
        Rhode Island
        Contribution (ppb)
 Projected Nonattainment Areas (Average 2023 DV >= 71.0)
 90013007
 Connecticut
 Fairfield
                                     71.0
                                     75.0
                                     0.02
 90019003
 Connecticut
 Fairfield
                                     73.0
                                     75.9
                                     0.02
 361030002
 New York
 Suffolk
                                     74.0
                                     75.5
                                     0.00
 480391004
 Texas
 Brazoria
                                     74.0
                                     74.9
                                     0.00
 482011039
 Texas
 Harris
                                     71.8
                                     73.5
                                     0.00
 484392003
 Texas
 Tarrant
                                     72.5
                                     74.8
                                     0.00
 550790085
 Wisconsin
 Milwaukee
                                     71.2
                                     73.0
                                     0.00
 551170006
 Wisconsin
 Sheboygan
                                     72.8
                                     75.1
                                     0.00
 Projected Maintenance Areas (Maximum 2023 DV >= 71.0)
 90010017
 Connecticut
 Fairfield
                                     68.9
                                     71.2
                                     0.01
 90099002
 Connecticut
 New Haven
                                     69.9
                                     72.6
                                     0.02
 360810124
 New York
 Queens
                                     70.2
                                     72.0
                                     0.04
 481210034
 Texas
 Denton
                                     69.7
                                     72.0
                                     0.00
 482010024
 Texas
 Harris
                                     70.4
                                     72.8
                                     0.00
 482011034
 Texas
 Harris
                                     70.8
                                     71.6
                                     0.00

 The March 27, 2018 memorandum also contained projected average and maximum 8-hour ozone design values at individual monitoring sites nationwide based on EPA's updated modeling for 2023. The average and maximum 8-hour ozone design values predicted by this modeling for monitors in Rhode Island is well below the 70 ppb standard, suggesting that Rhode Island ozone concentration will be well below the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 2023.

 Table 2:  EPA Predicted 2023 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Rhode Island
Site
Average Design Value
Maximum Design Value
440030002
60.4
60.7
440071010
59.5
61.1
440090007
62.6
64.0

 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Trends of Ozone

 Ozone design values for Rhode Island sites have generally decreased over time, but values have fluctuated both slightly above and slightly below the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb.  Based on the 2014-2016 design values, all counties in Rhode Island have been classified as Attainment/Unclassifiable for the 2015 standard. Although Rhode Island is currently designated as an attainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the monitored ozone design values slightly exceed the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Figure 1: Ozone Trends 2001-2019  (Source Rhode Island 2020 Annual Monitoring Network Plan and 5-Year Network Assessment)
 The March 27, 2018 memo identified the both the in-state contribution and contribution from upwind states to projected concentrations for 2023 as listed below in Table 3:

 Table 3:  Contribution in Rhode Island
Site
In State Contribution
Upwind States Contribution
440030002
0.65
34.69
440071010
2.93
30.22
440090007
11.80
28.36

 The projected contributions suggest that the elevated design values can be attributed to transport of pollutants from upwind states.  Rhode Island is dependent on Federal actions requiring emissions reductions in upwind states in order for the State to achieve and maintain healthy air quality.

 Rhode Island Emissions of Ozone Precursors

 Rhode Island prepares a comprehensive air emissions inventory every three years as required by EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) which requires states to collect and submit emissions data for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS).  Data from all known point sources in Rhode Island is entered into the Emissions Inventory System (EIS) along with estimates for nonpoint categories and model inputs for nonroad and onroad emissions models.  From this data EPA builds the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Summary data from the NEI is presented below for 2011, 2014 and 2017.  Projected 2023 data was obtained from EPA  2011 Version 6.3 modelling platform data.  Emissions of ozone precursors have decreased for the period 2011-2017 and are projected to be lower in 2023 than in 2017 (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

    Figure 2: NOx Emissions

    Figure 3: VOC Emissions

Emissions Reduction Efforts and Control Measures

In 2018 and 2019, Rhode Island adopted several air pollution control regulations based on EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) that represent Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for several industry sectors. As a state within the Ozone Transport Region, Rhode Island has been subject to and has strived to meet SIP requirements equivalent to those of marginal nonattainment areas. As a member-state of the Ozone Transport Commission, Rhode Island actively participates in development of regional control strategies of ozone precursor emissions and regularly assesses the applicability and appropriateness of OTC model rules for Rhode Island sources.

Efforts to reduce air pollution from mobile sources include adoption of California's vehicle emissions standards, inspection and maintenance of vehicle emissions control systems, enhancement of emissions control technology upgrade programs for diesel engines, and participation in regional and state-specific efforts to build and incentivize zero emission vehicle infrastructure and ownership. The emissions reduction efforts described here will result in lower contributions of ozone precursors from sources or activities within Rhode Island to downwind areas, and lead to greater air quality benefits locally and regionally.

Conclusion

In summary, based on the guidance specified in EPA's January 2018 memorandum and the results of the 2023 modeling that was issued with that memorandum, RI DEM certifies that air emissions from sources in Rhode Island do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.  Monitored ozone concentrations at sites that are often downwind of Rhode Island further support this assertion.

The submittal of this document to the EPA as an amendment to the Rhode Island SIP fulfills the "Good Neighbor" Provision requirements in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA and completes Rhode Island's fulfillment of the elements specified in Sections 110(a) (1) and (2)  of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 72497]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3586-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3586-EM), dated October 1, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin A.
Wallace Sr., of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of John F. Boyle as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25755 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85285-85286]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL24-10-000]

Basin Electric Power Cooperative; Notice of Institution of
Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On December 1, 2023, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL24-10-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Basin
Electric Power Cooperative's Rate Schedule A is unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Basin
Electric Power Cooperative, 185 FERC ] 61,163 (2023).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL24-10-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL24-10-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2022), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call

toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 1, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26869 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P