[Federal Register: May 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27885]
[DOCID:fr14my08-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Malfunction or Defect Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. This information allows the FAA to evaluate its
certification standards, maintenance programs, and regulatory
requirements. It is also the basis for issuance of Airworthiness
Directives designed to prevent unsafe conditions and accidents.

DATES: Please submit comments by July 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Malfunction or Defect Report.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0003.
    Form(s): 8010-4.
    Affected Public: A total of 56,045 respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 9 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 8,407 hours annually.
    Abstract: This information allows the FAA to evaluate its
certification standards, maintenance programs, and regulatory
requirements. It is also the basis for issuance of Airworthiness
Directives designed to prevent unsafe conditions and accidents.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-10554 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 28193]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

[Docket: DOT-OST-2014-0031 BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice]

Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report
of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved
reporting requirement. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period was published on March 11, 2021 (86 FR 13967). No comments were
received.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 24, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax Number
(202) 366-3383 or Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Approval No.: 2138-0016.
    Title: Report of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates.
    Form No.: 183.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved reporting
requirement.
    Respondents: Certificated air carriers.
    Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly Average).
    Number of Responses: 24.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.
    Total Annual Burden: 24 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Department uses this form as the means to
fulfill its obligation under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(the Act). The Act's legislative history indicates that one of its
statutory goals is to prevent candidates for Federal political office
from incurring large amounts of unsecured debt with regulated
transportation companies (e.g., airlines). This information collection
allows the Department to monitor and disclose the amount of unsecured
credit extended by airlines to candidates for Federal office. All
certificated air carriers are required to submit this information.
    The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to
clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes.
BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the
information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both
Respondent's identity and its data, and submission of the information
to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative matters.
    Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department of Transportation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2021.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2021-11037 Filed 5-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40220]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15943]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-660, OMB Control No. 3235-0722]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 1-U

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 1-U (17 CFR 239.93) is used to file current event reports by
Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form 1-U provides
information to the public within four business days of fundamental
changes in the nature of the issuer's business and other significant
events. We estimate that approximately 144 issuers file Form 1-U
annually. We estimate that Form 1-U takes approximately 5.0 hours to
prepare. We estimate that 85% of the 5.0 hours per response is prepared
by the company for a total annual burden of 612 hours (4.25 hours per
response x 144 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 22, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15943 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


VII. SIP Criteria and Emissions Reporting Requirements This section describes: ( 1) the criteria we will use in determining approvability of SIPs submitted to meet the requirements of today's rulemaking; ( 2) the dates for submittal of the SIPs that are required under the CAIR; ( 3)

the consequences of either failing to submit such a SIP or submitting a SIP which is disapproved; and ( 4) the emissions inventory reporting requirements for States.

A. What Criteria Will EPA Use to Evaluate the Approvability of a Transport SIP?

1. Introduction The approvability criteria for CAIR SIP submissions are finalized today in 40 CFR 51.123 ( NOx emissions reductions)

and in 40 CFR 51.124 ( SO2 emissions reductions). Most of the criteria are substantially similar to those that currently apply to SIP submissions under CAA section 110 or part D ( nonattainment). For example, each submission must describe the control measures that the State intends to employ, identify the enforcement methods for monitoring compliance and managing violations, and demonstrate that the State has legal authority to carry out its plan.

This part of the preamble explains additional approvability criteria specific to the CAIR that were proposed and discussed in the CAIR NPR or in the CAIR SNPR,

and are being promulgated today. As explained in both the CAIR NPR and the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed that each affected State must submit SIP revisions containing control measures that assure that a specified amount of NOx and SO2 emissions reductions are achieved by specified dates.

Although EPA determined the amount of emissions reductions required by identifying specific, highly costeffective control levels for EGUs, EPA explained in the CAIR NPR and the CAIR SNPR that States have flexibility in choosing which sources to control to achieve the required emissions reductions. As long as a State's emissions reductions requirements are met, a State may impose controls on EGUs only, on non EGUs only, or on a combination of EGUs and non EGUs. The SIP approvability criteria are intended to provide as much certainty as possible that, whichever sources a State chooses to control, the controls will result in the required amount of emissions reductions.

In the CAIR NPR, EPA proposed a " hybrid" approach for the mechanisms used to ensure emissions reductions are achieved. This approach incorporates elements of an emissions " budget" approach ( requiring an emissions cap on affected sources) and an " emissions reduction" approach ( not requiring an emissions cap). In this hybrid approach, if States impose control measures on EGUs, they would be required to impose an emissions cap on all EGUs, which would effectively be an emissions budget. And, as stated in the CAIR NPR, if States impose control measures on non EGUs,

they would be encouraged but not required to impose an emissions cap on non EGUs. In the CAIR NPR, we requested comment on the issue of requiring States to impose caps on any source categories that the State chooses to regulate.

In the CAIR SNPR, we proposed to modify the hybrid approach and require States that choose to control large industrial boilers or turbines ( greater than 250 MMBTu/ hr)

to impose an emissions cap on all such sources within their State. This is similar to EPA's approach in the NOx SIP Call which required States to include an emissions cap on such sources as well as on EGUs if the SIP submittals included controls on such sources. ( See 40 CFR 51.121( f)( 2)( ii).)

A few commenters supported the use of emissions caps on any source category subject to CAIR controls, including non

EGUs, because it would be the most effective way to demonstrate compliance with the budget. A few other commenters opposed the use of an emissions cap on non EGUs,

saying either that States should have the flexibility to determine whether to impose a cap, or that such a requirement would result in increased costs for non EGUs including cogeneration units that are non EGUs. No commenter opposing such a requirement provided any information indicating that such a requirement would be ineffective or impracticable. Today EPA is adopting the modified approach, as described in the CAIR SNPR, that States choosing to control EGUs or large industrial boilers or turbines must do so by imposing an emissions cap on such sources, similar to what was required in the NOx SIP Call.

Extensive comments were received regarding the need for an ozone season NOx cap in States identified to be contributing significantly to the region's ozone nonattainment problems. In proposal, EPA stated that the annual NOx cap under CAIR reduced NOx emissions sufficiently enough to not warrant a regional ozone season NOx cap.

Commenters remained very concerned that the annual NOx cap would not aid ozone attainment. While EPA feels that the annual NOx limit will most likely be protective in the ozone season, a seasonal cap will provide certainty, which EPA agrees is very important in the effort to help areas achieve ozone attainment. Today, EPA is finalizing an ozone season NOx cap for States shown to contribute significantly for ozone. As is further explained in section VIII, EPA is also finalizing an ozone season trading program that States may use to achieve the required emissions reductions. This program will subsume the existing NOx SIP Call trading program. Therefore, any State that wishes to continue including its sources in an interstate trading program run by EPA to achieve the emissions reductions required by EPA must modify its SIP to conform with this new trading program.

The EPA will automatically find that a State is continuing to meet its NOx SIP Call obligation if it achieves all of its required CAIR emissions reductions by capping EGUs, it modifies its existing NOx SIP Call to require its non EGUs currently participating in the NOx SIP Call budget trading program to conform to the requirements of the CAIR ozone season NOx trading program with a trading budget that is the same or tighter than the budget in the currently approved SIP, and it does not modify any of its other existing NOx SIP Call rules. If a State chooses to achieve the ozone season NOx emissions reduction requirements of CAIR in another way, it will also be required to demonstrate that it continues to meet the requirements of the NOx SIP Call.

Specific criteria for approval of CAIR SIP submissions as promulgated by today's action are described below. The criteria are dependent on the types of sources a State chooses to control.

2. Requirements for States Choosing to Control EGUs a. Emissions Caps and Monitoring As explained in the CAIR NPR ( 69 FR 4626), and in the CAIR SNPR ( 69 FR 32691), EPA proposed requiring States to apply the " budget" approach if they choose to control EGUs; that is, each State must cap total EGU emissions at the level that assures the appropriate amount of reductions for that State. The requirement to cap all EGUs is important because it prevents shifting of utilization ( and resulting emissions) to uncapped EGUs. The EGUs are part of a highly interconnected electricity grid that makes utilization shifting likely and even common. The units are large and offer the same market product ( i. e., electricity), and therefore the units that are least expensive to operate are likely to be operated as much as possible. If capped and uncapped units are interconnected, the uncapped units' costs would tend to decrease relative to the capped units, which must either reduce emissions or use or buy allowances, and the uncapped units' utilization would likely increase. The cap ensures that emissions reductions from these interconnected sources are actually achieved rather than emissions simply shifting among sources. The caps constitute the State EGU Budgets for SO2 and NOx.

Additionally, EPA proposed that, if States choose to control EGUs, they must require EGUs to follow part 75 monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements have been used effectively for determining NOx and SO2 emissions from EGUs under the title IV Acid Rain program and the NOx SIP Call program and in combination with emissions caps are an integral part of those programs. ( Additional explanation for the need for Part 75 monitoring is given in the NPR and SNPR and is incorporated here.) Therefore, today, EPA adopts the requirements for emission caps and Part 75 monitoring for EGUs in these States.

b. Using the Model Trading Rules As proposed, if a State chooses to allow its EGUs to participate in EPA administered interstate NOx and SO2 emissions trading programs, the State must adopt EPA's model trading rules, as described elsewhere in today's preamble and in § § 96.101 96.176 ( for NOx) and § § 96.201 96.276 ( for SO2), set forth below. Additionally, EPA proposed that for the States for which EPA made a finding of significant contribution for both ozone and PM2.5, participation in both the NOx and SO2 trading programs would be required in order to be included in the EPA administered program. States for which the finding was for ozone only could choose to participate in only the EPA administered NOx trading program through adoption of the NOx model trading rule. The EPA stated that States adopting EPA's model trading rules,

modified only as specifically allowed by EPA, will meet the requirement for applying an emissions cap and requirement to use part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for EGUs.

Some commenters opposed EPA's proposal to require participation in both the NOx and SO2 trading programs because some States may want to participate in the EPAadministered trading programs for only NOx or only SO2. A few commenters claimed that the requirement to participate in both programs would limit State flexibility or is an " all or nothing" approach; other commenters objected that there was no environmental basis for such a requirement; and one commenter suggested that States not affected by CAIR but that volunteer to control emissions should be permitted to join the program for one or both pollutants. Additionally,

commenters cited a need for an ozone season NOx program.

The EPA has taken the comments into account and in today's action agrees to allow a State identified to contribute significantly for PM2.5 ( and therefore required to make annual SO2 and NOx reductions) to participate in the EPA administered CAIR trading program for either SO2 or NOx,

not necessarily both, so long as the State adopts the model rule for the applicable trading program.

In response to extensive comments relating to EPA's proposal to forego a seasonal NOx cap because EPA demonstrated that the annual NOx cap was sufficiently stringent, EPA is finalizing an ozone season NOx trading program for States identified as contributing significantly for ozone. These States will be subject to an ozone season NOx cap and an annual NOx cap if the State is also identified as contributing significantly for PM 2.5.

Therefore, today's action includes an additional model rule for an ozone season NOx trading program ( 40 CFR 96, subparts AAAA through IIII). The States that may use the ozone season NOx trading program but not the annual NOx trading program are those States in the CAIR region identified as contributing significantly for ozone only ( Arkansas,

Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey).

As discussed in the proposal, EPA is finalizing the option for New Hampshire and Rhode Island to participate in the regional trading program through use of the CAIR ozone season NOx model rule because sources in these States have made investments in NOx controls in the past based on the existence of a regional ozone season NOx trading program.

Additionally, the States' combined projected 2010 and 2015 NOx emissions are less than one half of one percent of the total CAIR regional NOx cap and therefore would not create a significant increase in the CAIR cap. All comments received were supportive of this approach and EPA is finalizing it today.

None of these States ( Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, or Rhode Island)

has the option to participate in the EPA administered CAIR SO2 trading program nor the annual CAIR NOx trading program because there are no PM2.5 related emissions reductions 1 Title IV allowances can however be traded freely across the boundary of the CAIR region without any significant, negative environmental consequence. The potential negative consequences have been addressed through other requirements discussed below, like the retirement of excess title IV allowances. required under today's action in those States. ( Of course,

sources in these States will still be subject to the Acid Rain SO2 cap and trade program.) Likewise, Texas, Minnesota and Georgia may not participate in the ozone season NOx program, because they have not been shown to contribute significantly to the regional ozone problem. They are,

however, required to make annual NOx and SO2 reductions and may choose to participate in the annual NOx and annual SO2 trading program to meet their CAIR obligations.

Except for the special cases of Rhode Island and New Hampshire, other States outside of the CAIR region may not participate in the CAIR trading programs for either pollutant, because they were not shown to contribute significantly to PM2.5 or ozone nonattainment in the CAIR region. Allowing States outside of the CAIR region to participate would generally create an opportunity    through net sales of allowances from the non CAIR States to CAIR States for emission increases in States that have been shown to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the CAIR region. 1 A State may not participate in the EPA administered trading programs if they choose to get a portion of CAIR reductions from non EGUs. ( This is also discussed in Section VIII.) EPA maintains that requiring certain consistencies among States in the regionwide trading programs that EPA has offered to run does not unfairly limit States' flexibility to choose an approach for achieving CAIR mandated reductions that is best suited for a particular State's unique circumstances. States are free to achieve the reductions through whatever alternative mechanisms the States wish to design; for example, a group of States could cooperatively implement their own multi State trading programs that EPA would not administer.

c. Using a Mechanism Other than the Model Trading Rules If States choose to control EGUs through a mechanism other than the EPA administered NOx and SO2 emissions trading programs, then the States ( i) must still impose an emissions cap on total EGU emissions and require part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on all EGUs, and ( ii) must use the same definition of EGU as EPA uses in its model trading rules, i. e., the sources described as " CAIR units" in § 96.102, § 96.202, and § 96.302. A few commenters expressed concern that these requirements limit States' discretion in designing control measures to meet the CAIR requirements, but failed to offer any reason why the requirements would be impracticable or ineffective. The EPA believes that the requirements are necessary for a number of reasons. The requirements to cap all EGUs and to use the same definition of EGU are important because they prevent shifting of utilization ( and resulting emissions) from capped to uncapped sources. In this case, not requiring a cap on total EGU emissions in these States is likely to result in increased utilization and consequently increased emissions in these States. The requirement to use part 75 monitoring ensures the accuracy of monitored data and consistency of reporting among sources ( and thus the certainty that emissions reductions actually occurred)

across all States. Furthermore, most EGUs are currently monitoring and reporting using part 75 so it does not impose an additional requirement. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed approach.

If a State chooses to design its own intrastate or interstate NOx or SO2 emissions trading programs, the State must, in addition to meeting the requirements of the rules finalized in today's action, consider EPA's guidance,

" Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,"

January, 2001 ( EPA 452/ R 01 001) ( available on EPA's website at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ ecas/ incentiv. html). The State's programs are subject to EPA approval. The EPA will not administer a State designed trading program. Additionally,

it should be noted that allowances from any alternate trading program may not be used in the EPA administered trading programs.

d. Retirement of Excess Title IV Allowances The CAIR NPR proposed requirements on SIPs relating to the effects of title IV SO2 allowance allocations for 2010 and beyond that are in excess of the State's CAIR EGU SO2 emissions budget. The requirements were intended to ensure that the excess is not used in a manner that would lead to a significant increase in supply of title IV allowances, the collapse of the price of title IV allowances, the disruption of operation of the title IV allowance market and the title IV SO2 cap and trade system, and the potential for increased emissions in all States prior to 2010 and in non CAIR States in 2010 and later. These negative impacts on the title IV allowance market and on air quality, which are discussed in detail in section IX. B. below, would undermine the efficacy of the title IV program and could erode confidence in capand trade programs in general. To avoid these impacts, EPA proposed to require retirement of the excess title IV allowances through a retirement ratio mechanism.

The EPA proposed, as a mechanism for removing these additional allowances and meeting the 50 percent reduction required under phase I ( 2010 2014), that each affected EGU had to hold, and EPA would retire, two vintage 2010 2014 allowances for every ton of SO2 that the unit emits.

Further, EPA proposed that, for phase II ( which begins in 2015) when a 65 percent reduction is required, each affected EGU had to hold, and EPA would retire, three vintage 2015 and beyond allowances for every ton of SO2 that the unit emits. This 3 to 1 ratio would result in slightly more reductions than EPA has determined were necessary to eliminate the significant contribution by an upwind State.

In the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed two alternatives for addressing the issue of the additional allowances. Under the first alternative, affected EGUs had to hold, and EPA would retire, vintage 2015 and beyond allowances at a rate of 2.86 to 1 rather than 3 to 1, which would result in exactly the amount of reductions EPA has determined are necessary to eliminate a State's significant contribution.

Alternatively, also in the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed requiring the retirement of 2015 and beyond vintage allowances at a 3 to 1 ratio and permitting States to convert the additional reductions into allowances in their rules. The EPA also suggested that some States may want to use these reserved allowances to create an incentive for additional local emissions reductions that will be needed to bring all areas into attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.

As part of today's final CAIR rulemaking, EPA is finalizing a ratio of 2.86 to one. The ratio ultimately represents a reduction of 65 percent from the final title IV cap level, which has been found to be highly cost effective. For a detailed discussion regarding EPA's determination of highly cost effective, please refer to Section IV of the final CAIR preamble. As discussed earlier, EPA must employ a uniform ratio across sources to ensure consistency and the same cost effectiveness level across sources. The use of a 3 to 1 ratio is above the threshold that EPA has found to be cost effective, and the use of this ratio in conjunction with granting States flexibility to redistribute the additional allowances represented by the difference between the 2.86 to 1 and the 3 to 1 ratios creates potential problems since some States may choose not to redistribute the additional allowances. EPA is unable to ensure that all States redistribute the additional allowances back to sources, which would lead to different ratios for various sources. In light of this, EPA will use a Phase II ratio of 2.86 to 1 for all States affected by CAIR who choose to participate in the trading program.

Today, EPA is finalizing the general requirement that all SIPs must include a mechanism to ensure that excess SO2 allowances are retired. Furthermore, for States that participate in the EPA administered cap and trade program,

EPA is finalizing a specific mechanism that States must use.

i. States Participating in the EPA Administered SO2 Trading Program If a State chooses to participate in the EPA administered trading program, the State's excess title IV allowance retirement mechanism must follow the provisions of the SO2 model trading rule that requires that vintage 2010 through 2014 title IV allowances be retired at a ratio of two allowances for every ton of emissions and that vintage 2015 and beyond title IV allowances be retired at a ratio of 2.86 allowances for every ton of emissions. Pre 2010 vintage allowances would be retired at a ratio of one allowance for every ton of emissions. ( See discussion of the model SO2 cap and trade rule in section VIII of today's preamble.) States using the model SO2 cap and trade rule satisfy the requirement for retirement of excess title IV allowances.

ii. States not Participating in the EPA Administered SO2 Trading Program In the CAIR NPR, EPA stated that if a State does not choose to participate in the EPA administered trading programs but controls only EGUs, the State may choose the specific method to retire allowances in excess of its budget. The EPA considered alternative ways for retiring these excess allowances and, as stated in the CAIR SNPR,

believed that the use by different States of different means to address this concern could undermine the regionwide emissions reduction goals of the CAIR rulemaking. The EPA further described its concerns in section II of the preamble to the CAIR SNPR. ( See 69 FR 32686 32688.) Because of these concerns, in the CAIR SNPR, EPA withdrew the CAIR NPR proposal on this point and re proposed that all States use a 2 for 1 retirement ratio for vintage 2010 through 2014 allowances and a 2.86 for 1 or a 3 for 1 retirement ratio for vintage 2015 and beyond allowances to address concerns about title IV allowances that exceed State budgets. The EGUs would have a total emissions cap enforced by the State.

The SNPR described that for sources affected by both title IV and CAIR, allowance deductions and associated compliance determinations would be sequential. That is,

title IV compliance would be determined and then CAIR compliance would be determined. So, in 2010 2014, after surrendering one vintage 2010 through 2014 allowance for each ton of emissions for title IV compliance, the source would then surrender one additional allowance ( for a total of two allowances for each ton which meets the CAIR requirement). Similarly, in 2015 and beyond, after surrendering one vintage 2015 and beyond allowance for each ton of emissions for title IV compliance, the source would surrender 1.86 or 2 additional allowances and therefore meet the CAIR requirement. Commenters argued that in States where EGUs are not trading under CAIR that the excess title IV allowances could be removed in a variety of ways and that EPA did not need to require each State do this the same way, only that each State ensure that they are removed.

Today, EPA adopts the following requirement: if a State does not choose to participate in the EPA administered trading programs but controls only EGUs, the State must include in its SIP a mechanism for retiring the excess title IV allowances ( i. e., the difference between total allowance allocations in the State and the State EGU SO2 budget). To meet this requirement, the State may use the above described retirement mechanism or may develop a different mechanism that will achieve the required retirement of excess allowances.

3. Requirements for States Choosing to Control Sources Other than EGUs a. Overview of Requirements As noted in both the CAIR NPR and the CAIR SNPR, if a State chooses to require emissions reductions from non EGUs,

the State must adopt and submit SIP revisions and supporting documentation designed to quantify the amount of reductions from the non EGU sources and to assure that the controls will achieve that amount. Although EPA did not propose in the CAIR NPR that States be required to impose an emissions cap on those sources, but instead solicited comment on the issue, EPA proposed in the CAIR SNPR that States be required to impose an emissions cap in certain cases on non EGU sources. ( See discussion in VII. A. 1 of today's preamble.) 2 In the CAIR SNPR, EPA mistakenly cited the EGU budget numbers from Tables VI 9 and VI 10 in the CAIR NPR ( 69 FR 4619 20) when it should have cited Tables II 1 and II 2 in the CAIR SNPR. The EPA used the correct numbers, however, in the proposed regulatory text in the CAIR SNPR ( 69 FR 32729 30 and 69 FR 32733 34 ( § § 51.123( e)( 2) and 51.124( e)( 2)). If a State chooses to obtain some, but not all, of its required reductions for SO2 or NOx emissions from non EGUs,

it would still be required to set an EGU budget for SO2 or NOx respectively, but it would set such a budget at some level higher than shown in Tables V 1, V 2, or V 4 in today's preamble, thus allowing more emissions from EGUs.

The difference between the amount of a State's SO2 budget in Table V 1 and a State's selected higher EGU SO2 budget would be the amount of SO2 emissions reductions the State demonstrates it will achieve from non EGU sources. By the same token, the difference between the amount of a State's annual NOx budget in Table V 2 and a State's selected higher annual EGU NOx budget would be the amount of annual NOx emissions reductions the State demonstrates it will achieve from non EGU sources. 2 Further, the difference between the amount of a State's seasonal NOx budget in Table V 4 and a State's selected higher ozone season EGU NOx budget would be the amount of ozone season NOx emissions reductions the State demonstrates it will achieve from non EGU sources.

Special concerns about SO2 allowances In the case where a State requires a portion of its SO2 emissions reductions from non EGU sources and a portion from EGUs, there remains a concern about the impact of excess title IV allowances above a State's EGU cap,

particularly on the operation of the title IV SO2 cap

andtrade program. Consequently, today, we are adopting the requirement that these States include a mechanism for retirement of the allowances in excess of the State's SO2 budget.

Like a State choosing to control only EGUs but not to participate in the trading program, a State that chooses to control non EGUs and EGUs must adopt a mechanism for retiring surplus title IV allowances. The number of title IV allowances that must be retired is equal to the difference between the number of title IV allowances allocated to EGUs in that State and the SO2 budget the State sets for EGUs under this rule. If the State uses a retirement mechanism ( as discussed in VII. A. 2. d.) in which a source surrendering allowances under the title IV SO2 capand trade program surrenders more allowances than otherwise required under title IV, the total number of allowances surrendered per ton of emissions in this case will be less than 2 to 1 in Phase 1 and less than 2.86 to 1 in Phase 2.

This is because the non EGUs will control to achieve a portion of the CAIR SO2 reduction required, and so there will be a smaller surplus of title IV allowances than if all the required reductions were achieved by EGUs. The appropriate retirement factor will equal two times the State's SO2 budget in Phase I or 2.86 times the State's SO2 budget in Phase II as noted in Table V 1 of the budget section, divided by the State's selected higher EGU SO2 budget ( taking into account non EGU reductions). The factor could then be used as the EGU retirement ratio for compliance purposes in a scenario where a State has decided to control SO2 emissions from EGUs through a mechanism other than the EPA administered trading program.

A simplified example can help illustrate this. Let us assume a State's sources were allocated a total of 200 allowances under title IV. Under CAIR, in Phase I, the State's reduction requirement would thus be 100 tons.

Suppose this State decided that 25 tons would be reduced by non EGUs and the remaining 75 tons would be reduced by the EGUs. ( The State's budget for EGUS would increase to 125 tons.) The State would also need to retire 75 excess title IV allowances. This could be accomplished by requiring each Acid Rain source to surrender a total of 1.6 vintage 2010 through 2014 allowances ( 200 allowances allocated in the State / 125 tons in State EGU budget) per ton of SO2 emissions. The allowances surrendered would satisfy the Acid Rain Program requirement of surrendering one allowance per ton of emissions, as well as achieving the additional retirement requirement under CAIR since 200 allowances would be used for EGUs to emit the EGU budget of 125 tons of SO2.

( Pre 2010 allowances continue to be available for use on a one allowance per ton of emissions basis here as in other situations.)

This is consistent with EPA's overall approach. If this same State decided to get all reductions ( i. e., 100 tons) from EGUs, the State would require EGUs to retire 100 additional allowances by surrendering a total of 2 vintage 2010 through 2014 allowances ( 200 allowances allocated in the State / 100 tons in State EGU budget) per ton of SO2 emissions.

The demonstration of emissions reductions from non EGUs is a critical requirement of the SIP revision due from a State that chooses to control non EGUs. The State must take into account the amount of emissions attributable to the source category in both ( i) the base case, in the implementation years 2010 and 2015, i. e., without assuming any SIP required reductions under the CAIR from non EGUs;

and ( ii) in the control case, in the implementation years 2010 and 2015, i. e., assuming SIP required reductions under the CAIR from non EGUs. We proposed an alternative methodology for calculating the base case for certain large non EGU sources, as described below, but generally the difference between emissions in the base case and emissions in the control case equals the amount of emissions reductions that can be claimed from application of the controls on non EGUs. ( See discussion later in this section for criteria applicable to development of the baseline and projected control emissions inventories.)

States that meet the lesser of their CAIR ozone season NOx budget or NOx SIP Call EGU trading budget using the CAIR ozone season NOx trading program also satisfy their NOx SIP Call requirements for EGUs. States may also choose to include all of their NOx SIP Call non EGUs in the CAIR ozone season NOx program at their NOx SIP Call levels ( i. e., the non EGU trading budget remains the same).

To the extent EPA allows through the Regional Haze Rule and a State then chooses to use EPA analysis to show that CAIR reductions from EGUs meet BART requirements, States that achieve a portion of their CAIR reductions from sources other than EGUs and wanting to show that even with those reductions the EGUs will meet BART requirements must make a supplemental demonstration that BART requirements are satisfied.

b. Eligibility of Non EGU Reductions In the CAIR SNPR, EPA proposed that, in evaluating whether emissions reductions from non EGUs would count towards the emissions reductions required under the CAIR,

States may only include reductions attributable to measures that are not otherwise required under the CAA.

Specifically, EPA proposed that States must exclude non EGU reductions attributable to measures otherwise required by the CAA, including: ( 1) measures required by rules already in place at the date of promulgation of today's final rule,

such as adopted State rules, SIP revisions approved by EPA,

and settlement agreements; ( 2) measures adopted and implemented by EPA ( or other Federal agencies) such as emissions reductions required pursuant to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program for mobile sources ( vehicles or engines) or mobile source fuels, or pursuant to the requirements for National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and ( 3) specific measures which are mandated under the CAA ( which may have been further defined by EPA rulemaking) based on the classification of an area which has been designated nonattainment for a NAAQS, such as vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.

In discussing this proposal, EPA noted that States required to make CAIR SIP submittals may also be required to make separate SIP submittals to meet other requirements applicable to non EGUs, e. g., nonattainment SIPs required for areas designated nonattainment under the PM2.5 or 8 hour ozone NAAQS or regional haze SIPs. The EPA noted it is likely that CAIR SIP submittals will be due before or at the same time as some of these other SIP submittals. We therefore proposed that States relying on reductions from controls on non EGUs must commit in the CAIR SIP revisions to replace the emissions reductions attributable to any CAIR SIP measure if that measure is subsequently determined to be required to meet any other SIP requirement.

Some commenters objected to the proposed exclusion of credit for measures which are mandated under the CAA based on the classification of an area which has been designated nonattainment for a NAAQS, as well as to the proposed requirement that such measures must be replaced if they are later determined to be required in meeting separate SIP requirements. These commenters reasoned that such a requirement would not be applied to EGUs and would impose unnecessary and costly burdens on non EGUs, thus creating an incentive for States to avoid controlling non EGUs and to impose all CAIR reduction requirements on EGUs. One commenter further objected that, as long as a measure was not included in the base case EPA used to determine a State's contribution to other States' nonattainment under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D), there is no justification for excluding CAIR credit for such measure, and that EPA's proposed exclusion of credit for any measure " otherwise required by the CAA" is inconsistent with the NOx SIP Call.

In response to these comments, EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to apply this proposed restriction inconsistently to EGUs and non EGUs. Thus, EPA is adopting a modified form of the proposed criteria for the eligibility of non EGU emissions reductions, eliminating the requirement that States must exclude non EGU reductions attributable to measures otherwise required by the CAA based on the classification of an area which has been designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. Consequently, the final rule allows credit for measures that a State later adopts in response to requirements which result from an area's nonattainment classification, such as reasonably available control technology ( RACT). With this change, all emissions reductions are eligible for credit in meeting CAIR except:

( 1) measures adopted or implemented by the State as of the date of promulgation of today's final rule, such as adopted State rules, SIP revisions approved by EPA, and settlement agreements; and ( 2) measures adopted or implemented by the Federal government ( e. g., EPA or other Federal agencies) as of the date of submission of the SIP revision by the State to EPA, such as emissions reductions required pursuant to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program for mobile sources ( vehicles or engines) or mobile source fuels, or pursuant to the requirements for National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

This exclusion of credit is consistent with EPA's approach in the NOx SIP Call, although a direct comparison of the creditability requirements in the CAIR and in the NOx SIP Call is not possible due to the timing and context in which both rules were developed. The NOx SIP Call used statewide budgets for all sources as an accounting tool to determine the adequacy of a strategy, while the CAIR takes a different approach in which baseline emission inventories for non EGU sectors will, if needed, be developed later.

The NOx SIP Call did, as does the CAIR, restrict States from taking credit for any Federal measures adopted after promulgation of the rule ( 63 FR 57427 28). It also did not allow credit for already adopted measures, but the timing of the NOx SIP Call was such that nonattainment planning measures would have already likely been adopted as the SIP deadlines for adoption of such measures had passed. In today's action, nonattainment planning measures adopted after the promulgation of today's rule will be allowed credit under CAIR.

In order to take credit for CAIR reductions from non

EGUs, the reductions must be beyond what is required under the NOx SIP Call. That is, a reduction must be in the nonozone season or it must be beyond what is expected in the ozone season. Non ozone season reductions must also be beyond what is in the base case, particularly for units that have low NOx burners and certain SCRs ( e. g., ones required to be run annually). The reductions must be in addition to those already expected. If ozone season reductions are considered, the non EGU NOx SIP Call trading budget must be adjusted by the increment of CAIR reductions beyond the levels in the NOx SIP Call. This removes the corresponding allowances from the market and ensures that the emissions do not shift to other sources.

After evaluating the eligibility of non EGU reductions in accordance with the requirements discussed here, States must exclude credit for ineligible measures by ( i) including such measures in both the baseline and controlled emissions inventory cases, if they have already been adopted; or ( ii)

excluding them from both the base and control emissions inventory cases if they have not yet been adopted. ( See discussion later in this section regarding development of emissions inventories and demonstration of non EGU reductions.)

c. Emissions Controls and Monitoring As noted in section VII. A. 1., we modified the " hybrid"

approach described in the CAIR NPR as it applies to certain non EGUs, and adopt today the approach described in the CAIR SNPR. Specifically, for States that choose to impose controls on large industrial boilers and turbines, i. e.,

those whose maximum design heat input is greater than 250 mmBtu/ hr, to meet part or all of their emissions reductions requirements under the CAIR, State rules must include an emissions cap on all such sources in their State.

Additionally, in this situation, States must require those large industrial boilers and turbines to meet part 75 requirements for monitoring and reporting emissions as well as recordkeeping. This ensures consistency in measurement and certainty of reductions and has been proven technologically and economically feasible in other programs.

If a State chooses to control non EGUs other than large industrial boilers and turbines to obtain the required emissions reductions, the State must either ( i) impose the same requirements, i. e., an emissions cap on total emissions from non EGUs in the source category in the State and part 75 monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements; or ( ii) demonstrate why such requirements are not practicable.

In the latter case, the State must adopt appropriate alternative requirements to ensure that emissions reductions are being achieved using methods that quantify those emissions reductions, to the extent practicable, with the same degree of assurance that reductions are being quantified for EGUs and non EGU boilers and turbines using part 75 monitoring. This is to ensure that, regardless of how a State chooses to meet the CAIR emissions reduction requirements, all reductions made by States to comply with the CAIR have the same, high level of certainty as that achieved through the cap and trade approach. Further, if a 3 The many EPA guidance documents and tools for preparing emission inventory estimates for SO2 and NOx are available at the following websites: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ net/ general. html, http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ eiip/ techreport/, http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ publications. html# general, http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ software/ index. html, and http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ efinformation. html. State adopts alternative requirements that do not apply to all non EGUs in a particular source category ( defined to include all sources where any aspect of production of one or more such sources is reasonably interchangeable with that of one or more other such sources), the State must demonstrate that it has analyzed the potential for shifts in production from the regulated sources to unregulated or less stringently regulated sources in the same State as well as in other States and that the State is not including reductions attributable to sources that may shift emissions to such unregulated or less regulated sources.

d. Emissions Inventories and Demonstrating Reductions To quantify emissions reductions attributable to controls on non EGUs, the States must submit both baseline and projected control emissions inventories for the applicable implementation years. We have issued many guidance documents and tools for preparing such emissions inventories, some of which apply to specific sectors States may choose to control. 3 While much of that guidance is applicable to today's rulemaking, there are some key 4 The 2010 modeling date is relevant for both SO2 and NOx even though NOx requirements begin in 2009. See Section IV for discussion. differences between quantification of emissions reduction requirements under a SIP designed to help achieve attainment with a NAAQS and emissions reduction requirements under a SIP designed to reduce emissions that contribute significantly to a downwind State's nonattainment problem or interfere with maintenance in a downwind State. Because States are taking actions as a result of their impact on other States, and because the impacted States have no authority to reduce emissions from other States, the emissions reduction estimates become even more important.

( For a complete discussion, see 69 FR 32693; June 10, 2004.)

Specifically, when we review CAIR SIPs for approvability, we intend to review closely the emissions inventory projections for non EGUs to evaluate whether emissions reduction estimates are correct. We intend to review the accuracy of baseline historical emissions for the subject sources, assumptions regarding activity and emissions growth between the baseline year and 20104 and 2015, and assumptions about the effectiveness of control measures.

Before describing the specific steps involved in this quantification process, EPA notes that a few commenters objected to the proposed requirements as arbitrary restrictions intended to discourage States' discretion in imposing control measures on non EGUs since these requirements would use what the commenters describe as extremely conservative emissions baseline and emissions reduction estimates. No commenter refuted EPA's explanation, noted above, of the need for stringent requirements to ensure greater accuracy of emission inventories and greater certainty of reduction estimates used in SIPs addressing transported pollutants. The EPA maintains that the need for more accurate inventories and more certain reduction estimates justifies the requirements discussed below. Further, no commenter provided an alternate method of addressing EPA's concerns about the development of such inventories and reduction estimates.

Thus, EPA is finalizing its proposed approach.

i. Historical Baseline To quantify non EGU reductions, as the first step, a historical baseline must be established for emissions of SO2 or NOx from the non EGU source( s) in a recent year. The historical baseline inventory should represent actual emissions from the sources prior to the application of the controls. We expect that States will choose a representative year ( or average of several years) during 2002 2005 for this purpose.

The requirements for estimating the historical baseline inventory that follow reflect EPA's view that, when States assign emissions reductions to non EGU sources, achievement of those reductions should carry a high degree of certainty,

just as EGU reductions can be quantified with a high degree of certainty in accordance with the applicable part 75 monitoring requirements. Because the non EGU emissions reductions are estimated by subtracting controlled emissions from a projected baseline, if the historical baseline overestimates actual emissions, the estimated reductions could be higher than the actual reductions achieved.

For non EGU sources that are subject to part 75 monitoring requirements, historical baselines must be derived from actual emissions obtained from part 75 monitored data. For non EGU sources that do not have part 75 monitoring data, historical baselines must be established that estimate actual emissions in a way that matches or approaches as closely as possible the certainty provided by the part 75 measured data for EGUs. For these sources,

States must estimate historical baseline emissions using source specific or category specific data and assumptions that ensure a source's or source category's actual emissions are not overestimated.

To determine the baseline for sources that do not have part 75 measured data, States must use emission factors that ensure that emissions are not overestimated ( e. g., emission factors at the low end of a range when EPA guidance presents a range) or the State must provide additional information that shows with reasonable confidence that another value is more appropriate for estimating actual emissions. Other monitoring or stack testing data can be considered, but care must be taken not to overestimate baselines. If a production or utilization factor is part of the historical baseline emissions calculation, a factor that ensures that emissions are not overestimated must be used, or additional data must be provided. Similarly, if a control or rule effectiveness factor enters into the estimate of historical baseline emissions, such a factor must be realistic and supported by facts or analysis. For these factors, a high value ( closer to 100 percent control and effectiveness)

ensures that emissions are not overestimated.

ii. Projections of 2010 and 2015 Baselines The second step in quantifying SO2 or NOx emissions reductions for non EGUs is to use the historical baseline emissions and project emissions that would be expected in 2010 and 2015 without the CAIR. This step results in the 2010 and 2015 baseline emissions estimates.

The EPA proposed and requested comment on two procedures for estimating the future baselines: one relies on projections based on a number of estimated parameters;

the second uses the lower of this projection and actual historical emissions. Today, EPA finalizes the second approach for determining 2010 and 2015 emissions baselines.

To estimate future emissions, States must use state

ofthe art methods for projecting the source or source category's economic output. Economic and population forecasts must be as specific as possible to the applicable industry, State, and county of the source and must be consistent with both national projections and relevant official planning assumptions, including estimates of population and vehicle miles traveled developed through consultation between State and local transportation and air quality agencies. However, if these official planning assumptions are themselves inconsistent with official U. S.

Census projections of population or with energy consumption projections contained in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook published by the U. S. Department of Energy, then adjustments must be made to correct the inconsistency, or the SIP must demonstrate how the official planning assumptions are more accurate. If the State expects changes in production method, materials, fuels, or efficiency to occur between the baseline year and 2010 or 2015, the State must account for these changes in the projected 2010 and 2015 baseline emissions. For example, if a source has publicly announced a change or applied for a permit for a change, it should be reflected in the projections. The projection must also reflect any adopted regulations that are ineligible control measures and that will affect source emissions.

As stated above, EPA is requiring States to use the lower of historical baseline emissions or projected 2010 or 2015 emissions, as applicable, for a source category. This is because changes in production method, materials, fuels,

or efficiency often play a key role in changes in emissions.

Because of factors such as these, emissions can often stay the same or even decrease as productivity within a sector increases. These factors that contribute to emission decreases can be very difficult to quantify.

Underestimating the impact of these types of factors can very easily result in a projection for increased emissions within a sector, when a correct estimate will result in a projection for decreased emissions within the sector. A few commenters opposed this methodology as arbitrary but failed to explain why EPA's concerns, as described above, are not valid. Commenters also failed to propose other methodologies for addressing these concerns. Thus, EPA is finalizing the use of this second methodology.

iii. Controlled Emissions Estimates for 2010 and 2015 The third step is to develop the 2010 and 2015 controlled emissions estimates by assuming the same changes in economic output and other factors listed above but adding the effects of the new controls adopted for the purpose of meeting the CAIR. The controls may take the form of regulatory requirements, e. g., emissions caps, emission rate limits, technology requirements, or work practice requirements. The State's estimate of the effect of the control regulations must be realistic in light of the specific provisions for monitoring, reporting, and enforcement and experience with similar regulatory approaches.

In addition, the State's analysis must examine the possibility that the controls may cause production and emissions to shift to unregulated or less stringently regulated sources in the same State or another State. If all sources of a source category ( defined to include all sources where any aspect of production is reasonably interchangeable) within the State are regulated with the same stringency and compliance assurance provisions, the analysis of production and emissions shifts need only consider the possibility of shifts to other States. If only a portion of a source category within a State is regulated,

the analysis must also include any in State shifting. In estimating controlled emissions in 2010 and 2015,

assumptions regarding control measures that are not eligible for CAIR reduction credit must be the same as in the 2010 and 2015 baseline estimates. For example, a State may not take credit for reductions in the sulfur content of nonroad diesel fuel that are required under the recent Federal nonroad fuel rule ( 69 FR 38958; June 29, 2004). By including the effect of this Federal rule in both the baseline and controlled emissions estimates for 2010 and 2015, the State will appropriately exclude this ineligible reduction when it subtracts the controlled emissions estimates from the baseline emissions estimates.

The method that we are adopting today specifies the 2010 and 2015 emissions reductions which can be counted toward satisfying the CAIR. The method requires the use of the historical baseline or the baseline emission estimates,

whichever is lower. That is, the reduction is calculated as follows: ( i) for 2010, the difference between the lower of historical baseline or 2010 baseline emissions estimates and the 2010 controlled emissions estimates, minus any emissions that may shift to other sources rather than be eliminated;

and ( ii) for 2015, the difference between the lower of historical baseline or 2015 baseline emissions estimates and the 2015 controlled emissions estimates, minus any emissions that may shift to other sources rather than be eliminated.

4. Controls on Non EGUs Only Although we stated that we believe it is unlikely States may choose to control only non EGUs, we proposed in the CAIR SNPR provisions for determining the specified 5 See " Technical Support Document for the Clean Air Interstate Rule Notice of Final Rulemaking: Regional and State SO2 and NOx Emissions Budgets" for tables containing information to calculate these amounts for both SO2 and NOx. emissions reductions that must be obtained if States pursue this alternative, and we adopt those provisions today. The reason we think it is unlikely is based on States' emissions profiles. Most SO2 emissions are from EGUs and therefore it is unlikely that a State can achieve the required emissions reductions without regulating EGUs to some degree. In addition, SO2 emissions reductions from EGUs are highly cost effective. States that choose this path must ensure that the amount of non EGU reductions is equivalent to all of the emissions reductions that would have been required from EGUs had the State chosen to assign all the emissions reductions to EGUs. For SO2 emissions, this amount in 2010 would be 50 percent of a State's title IV SO2 allocations for all units in the State and, for 2015, 65 percent of such allocations.

For NOx emissions, this amount would be the difference between a State's EGU budget for NOx under the CAIR and its NOx baseline EGU emissions inventory as projected in the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM) for 2010 and 2015,

respectively. 5 In addition, the same requirements described elsewhere in this part of today's preamble regarding the eligibility of non EGU reductions, emissions control and monitoring,

emissions inventories and demonstration of reductions, will apply to the situation where a State chooses to control only non EGUs.

5. Use of Banked Allowances and the Compliance Supplement Pool In the CAIR NPR, EPA stated that States may allow EGUs to demonstrate compliance with the State EGU SO2 budget by using title IV allowances ( i) that were banked, or ( ii) that were obtained in the current year from sources in other States ( 69 FR 4627). The EPA adopts this provision in today's action. The EPA adopts a similar provision for the use of banked NOx SIP Call allowances ( pre 2009) to demonstrate compliance with the State EGU ozone season NOx budget. See also the CAIR NPR ( 69 FR 4633). Therefore,

State rules may allow the use of pre 2010 title IV and pre

2009 NOx SIP Call allowances banked in the title IV and NOx SIP Call trading programs for compliance in the CAIR.

States participating in the EPA administered CAIR trading programs must allow the use of these pre 2010 title IV allowances or pre 2009 NOx SIP Call allowances in accordance with EPA's model trading rules.

Additionally, States with annual NOx reduction requirements may use compliance supplement pool ( CSP)

allowances as described in sections V and VIII.

Distribution of the CSP is essentially the same as the process used in the NOx SIP Call, through one or both of two mechanisms. States may distribute CSP allowances on a tonfor ton basis to sources that implement NOx control measures resulting in reductions in 2007 or 2008 that are beyond what is required by any applicable State or Federal emissions limitation ( early reductions). The second CSP distribution mechanism that a State can use is to issue CSP allowances based on the demonstration of a need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The demonstration must show unacceptable risk either to a source's own operation or its associated industry for EGUs,

power supply reliability, for non EGUs risk comparable to that described for the electricity industry. See also 63 FR 57356 for further discussion of these points.

Pre 2010 title IV SO2 allowances, pre 2009 NOx SIP Call allowances and CAIR annual NOx CSP allowances can all be counted toward a States efforts to achieve its CAIR reduction obligations regardless of whether the CAIR trading programs are used or not.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53527-53529]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19174]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78505; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

August 8, 2016
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on August 1, 2016, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate certain Web CRD Fees in order
to address the transition of the Regulatory Element of Continuing
Education (``CE'') to the FINRA CE Online System[supreg].
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Section 2(c) of
the Regulatory Fees section of the Fee Schedule, Web CRD Fees, to (1)
delete the $100 Continuing Education Fee for All Registrations, which
relates to test center delivery of the Regulatory Element of CE, and
(2) clarify that the $55 Continuing Education Fee for All Registrations
if Web-based shall apply to all registrations without regard to mode of
session delivery.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) delete the $100 CE Fee
in its entirety, and (2) with respect to the $55 CE Fee, delete
reference to Web-based delivery and specify that it is a ``session''
fee.
    MIAX is proposing such Fee Schedule amendments in conjunction with
FINRA's transition to CE Online and its phase out of test center
delivery of the CE Regulatory Element.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78281 (July 11,
2016), 81 FR 46133 (July 15, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2016-025) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Fee for the Regulatory Element of Continuing
Education). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July
31, 2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-015) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Provide a Web-based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory
Element of the Continuing Education Requirements), Regulatory Notice
15-28 (August 2015) and Information Notice, May 16, 2016
(Elimination of Continuing Education Delivery at Testing Centers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On July 31, 2015, the Commission approved [sic] SR-FINRA-2015-015
relating to proposed changes to FINRA Rules to provide for Web-based
delivery completion of the Regulatory Element of CE requirements.
Pursuant to the rule change, the Regulatory Element of CE programs is
administered through Web-based delivery via the FINRA CE Online System
as of January 4, 2016. Pursuant to the rule change, the Regulatory
Element of CE programs also continued to be offered at test centers
until no later than six months after January 4, 2016. Test-center
delivery of the Regulatory Element has been phased out effective July
1, 2016.\4\ On July 11, 2016, the Commission approved SR-FINRA-2016-025
relating to proposed changes to FINRA Fees for the Regulatory Element
of CE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Information Notice, May 16, 2016 (Elimination of
Continuing Education Delivery at Testing Centers). Notwithstanding
such test center phase out, participants who may need accommodations
in completing their CE session due to a disability pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, 104
Stat. 328 (1990) (``ADA'') may apply for an accommodation and
complete their CE Regulatory Element session at a test center. See
FINRA's CE Online Delivery Accommodation Web page, available at
http://www.finra.org/industry/accommodations-continuing-education-ce-online-participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2016 the Exchange amended its Rules,\5\ in consultation
with FINRA and the other exchanges, to provide for Web-based delivery
of the CE Regulatory Element for registered persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76892 (January 13,
2016), 81 FR 3206 (January 20, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal

    The Exchange now proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to delete the
$100 CE Fee for All Registrations since the test center delivery option
for the Regulatory Element will no longer be offered \6\ and the $100
fee currently charged for administration of non-Web-based CE programs
is therefore retired.\7\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete
this fee from its current Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78281 (July 11,
2016), 81 FR 46133 (July 15, 2016) (SR-FINRA-2016-025) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Fee for the Regulatory Element of Continuing
Education).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to clarify that the $55 CE Fee will
now generally apply to all CE sessions without further specifying the
Web-based delivery mode since there will no longer be more than one
mode of CE delivery.\8\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the
reference to Web-based delivery from Section 2(c) of the Fee Schedule
and specify that it is a ``session'' fee in order to provide clarity
and avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ With the exception of participants who may need
accommodations in completing their CE session due to a disability
pursuant to the ADA and to whom the session fee of $55 for the
Regulatory Element shall apply regardless of whether the session is
completed at a test center or through the CE Online System. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78281 (July 11, 2016), 81 FR
46133 (July 15, 2016) (SR- FINRA-2016-025) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Fee for the Regulatory Element of Continuing Education).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because the fee change applies equally to
all Members and persons associated with Members. The Exchange believes
that the proposal is reasonable because FINRA will administer the CE
program only through the FINRA CE Online System and will no longer
offer a testing center CE delivery option, except as specifically noted
above in which case FINRA has aligned its $55 session fee for all
participants.\11\ In addition, the Exchange believes this session fee
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply uniformly
to all Members and persons associated with the Members who choose to
participate in the CE program provided through FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
further believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on
competition because FINRA has made, and the Exchange believes that the
other exchanges will make, similar changes to their fee schedules.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-MIAX-2016-23 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 No. SR-MIAX-2016-23. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MIAX. 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 No. SR-MIAX-2016-23 and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19174 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14066-14068]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05220]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80213; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2017-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Fees for
New Ports

March 10, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2017, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to adopt fees
for the new ports that members will use to connect to the Exchange
following the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq
INET architecture.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees to adopt fees for the new ports that members will use to connect
to the Exchange following the migration of the Exchange's trading
system to the Nasdaq INET architecture.\3\ In particular, the Exchange
proposes to adopt fees for the following connectivity options that will
become available in connection with the re-platform of the Exchange's
trading system: Specialized Quote Feed (``SQF''),\4\ SQF Purge,\5\ Ouch
to Trade Options (``OTTO''),\6\ Clearing Trade Interface (``CTI''),\7\
Financial Information eXchange (``FIX''),\8\ FIX Drop,\9\ Disaster
Recovery,\10\ and ITCH-to-Trade Options (``ITTO'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80011 [sic]
(February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-
2016-17 [sic]).
    \4\ SQF is an interface that allows market makers to connect and
send quotes, sweeps and auction responses into ISE Gemini. Data
includes the following: (1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g.,
opening imbalance, Flash, PIM, Solicitation and Facilitation or
other information); (2) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (3)
System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system
hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (4) Option Trading
Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (5) Execution Messages (6)
Quote Messages (quote/sweep messages, risk protection triggers or
purge notifications).
    \5\ SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that only
receives and notifies of purge requests from the market maker.
    \6\ OTTO is an interface that allows market participants to
connect and send orders, auction orders and auction responses into
ISE Gemini. Data includes the following: (1) Options Auction
Notifications (e.g., Flash, PIM, Solicitation and Facilitation or
other information); (2) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (3)
System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system
hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (5) Option Trading
Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (6) Execution Messages (7)
Order Messages (order messages, risk protection triggers or purge
notifications).
    \7\ CTI is a real-time clearing trade update is a message that
is sent to a member after an execution has occurred and contains
trade details. The message containing the trade details is also
simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation. The
information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The
Clearing Member Trade Agreement or ``CMTA'' or The Options Clearing
Corporation or ``OCC'' number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number;
(iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier; and (iv) an indicator
which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered
orders; (v) liquidity indicators and transaction type for billing
purposes; (vi) capacity.
    \8\ FIX is an interface that allows market participants to
connect and send orders and auction orders into ISE Gemini. Data
includes the following: (1) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (2)
System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system
hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (3) Option Trading
Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (4) Execution Messages (5)
Order Messages (order messages, risk protection triggers or purge
notifications).
    \9\ FIX Drop is a real-time order and execution update is a
message that is sent to a member after an order been received/
modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details.
The information includes, among other things, the following: (1)
Executions (2) cancellations (3) modifications to an existing order
(4) busts or post-trade corrections.
    \10\ Disaster Recovery ports provide connectivity to the
exchange's disaster recovery data center in Chicago to be utilized
in the event the exchange has to fail over during the trading day.
DR Ports are available for SQF, SQF Purge, CTI, OTTO, FIX and FIX
Drop.
    \11\ ITTO ports provide connectivity to the ISE Gemini
Real[hyphen]time Depth of Market Raw Data Feed (``Depth Feed''). The
Depth Feed, provides aggregate quotes and orders at the top five
price levels on the Exchange, and provides subscribers with a
consolidated view of tradable prices beyond the BBO, showing
additional liquidity and enhancing transparency for ISE Gemini
traded options. The data provided for each instrument includes the
symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator,
expiration date, the strike price of the series, and trading status.
In addition, subscribers are provided with total quantity, customer
quantity (if present), price, and side (i.e., bid/ask). This
information is provided for each of the five indicated price levels
on the Depth Feed. The feed also provides participants of imbalances
on opening/reopening.

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

    Currently, the Exchange charges Market Makers, i.e., Primary Market
Makers (``PMMs'') and Competitive Market Makers (``CMM''), an API
session fee of $100 per month per API for sessions used for quoting,
order entry and listening. In addition, the Exchange charges Electronic
Access Members (``EAMs'') that connect to the Exchange via API a
session fee of $100 per session for month for access to ISE Gemini
only, and $250 per month each for the first five sessions and $100 per
month each additional session for connectivity to both ISE Gemini and
the Exchange's affiliate, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE''). Finally, the Exchange charges EAMs that connect to the
Exchange via FIX a session fee of $50 per session per month for access
to ISE Gemini only, and $250 per month each for the first two sessions
and $50 per month for each additional session for connectivity to both
ISE Gemini and ISE.
    With the re-platform of the Exchange's trading system, the Exchange
will now be offering a new set of ports for connecting to ISE Gemini--
i.e., SQF, SQF Purge, OTTO, and CTI, FIX, FIX Drop, Disaster Recovery,
and ITTO. These connectivity options are the same as connectivity
options currently used to connect to the Exchange's affiliates,
including Nasdaq Phlx (``Phlx''), Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), and
Nasdaq BX (``BX'').\12\ The Exchange now proposes to adopt fees for
these ports.\13\ The proposed fees for these ports will be $0 per port
per month. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide
these ports without charge during this initial migration period to
avoid double charging members that are connected to both the current T7
trading system and the new INET trading system. In addition, adding
these port fees to the Schedule of Fees now will alert members to the
fact that they will not be charged for access through these new
connectivity options at this time. The current API/FIX session fees
will remain in place as members are still using these connectivity
options to connect to the Exchange during the migration of the
Exchange's trading system to INET.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule, VII. Other Member Fees, B. Port
Fees; NOM Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec. 3 NOM--Ports and
other Services; BX Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec. 3 BX--
Ports and other Services.
    \13\ Fees apply only to connectivity to the ISE Gemini INET
trading system.
    \14\ The Exchange will eliminate current API/FIX session fees at
a later date when those connectivity options are no longer available
to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to adopt
fees for the various ports used to connect to the Exchange's new INET
trading system. As explained above, the ports that will be used to
connect to the INET trading system are the same as ports currently used
by the Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange has determined to offer
these ports free of cost for the time being in order to aid in the
migration of the Exchange's trading system to INET technology. Adding
these port fees to the Schedule of Fees will clarify to members that
they will not have to pay for access to both T7 and INET trading
systems. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed fee
change is unfairly discriminatory as each of the proposed port fees are
initially proposed to be free of charge for all members.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
port fees will be offered initially free of cost to aid in the
migration of the Exchange's trading system to Nasdaq INET technology.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and
consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISEGemini-2017-10 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-ISEGemini-2017-10. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-ISEGemini-2017-10 and should
be submitted on or before April 6, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05220 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P