[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28439-28444]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11226]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873; FRL-9909-98-OAR]
RIN 2060-AH23

Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring
Systems at Stationary Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures (referred to as Procedure 3) for continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS) used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with opacity standards specified in new source performance standards
(NSPS) issued by the EPA pursuant to section 111(b) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Docket, EPA/DC, William J. Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility and Public
Reading Room are open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Lula H. Melton, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0516; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of Procedure 3
IV. Public Comments on Proposed Procedure 3
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Procedure 3 applies to COMS used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with opacity standards specified in NSPS promulgated by the
EPA pursuant to section 111(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b).

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (www) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. A redline strikeout
document that compares this final rule to the proposed rule has also
been added to the docket.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 15, 2014.
Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of
this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

II. Background

    Procedure 3 results in national consistency in the application of
QA/QC procedures by applicable sources using COMS. We published a
direct final rule and a parallel proposed rule for Procedure 3 in the
Federal Register on February 14, 2012. The public comment period was
originally scheduled to end on March 15, 2012, but was extended to
April 30, 2012, at the request of several commenters. On March 28,
2012, the EPA withdrew the direct final rule based on the receipt of
adverse comments on the parallel proposed rule.

III. Summary of Procedure 3

    This final rule codifies Procedure 3 in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F.
Procedure 3 establishes requirements for daily instrument zero and
upscale drift checks, daily status indicator checks, quarterly
performance audits, and annual zero alignments, and requires source
owners and operators to have a corrective action in place for
malfunctioning COMS. In addition, Performance Specification 1 (which is
the initial certification for COMS) provides requirements for the
design, performance, and installation of a COMS and data computation
procedures for evaluating the acceptability of a COMS. The requirements
in Procedure 3 are modeled after manufacturers' maintenance
recommendations. As a result, the EPA believes that most, if not all,
owners/operators are already following procedures similar to those
specified in Procedure 3. Therefore, there are no additional costs, or
reporting burden, associated with implementing Procedure 3.

IV. Public Comments on Proposed Procedure 3

    The EPA received 27 comments from state agencies, industry, and
non-profit organizations. Nine commenters noted support for Procedure
3. Several commenters requested clarity with regard to applicability,
so the

applicability statement is revised to indicate that Procedure 3 applies
to COMS used to demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity
standards in NSPS's only. More than half of the commenters stated that
the 60-day compliance deadline is not enough time in cases where
training is necessary or QA/QC plans need to be developed. In response,
the EPA has extended the deadline to 180 days. Several commenters asked
that we clarify the temporal definitions for the daily, quarterly, and
annual audits because some units do not operate 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week. In response, the temporal definitions are revised. Several
commenters noted that a fault status indicator does not necessarily
mean that data are invalid. The EPA agrees that a status indicator is a
warning that opacity readings are nearing the limit and that the data
are not necessarily invalid, so language that indicated the data would
be considered invalid has been removed. Several commenters requested
that we delete the requirement to remove the COMS to conduct zero
alignment audits claiming that removing the COMS from the stack exposes
it to potential damage and presents a safety hazard. However, the EPA
believes that the zero alignment audit needs to be done off-stack
annually unless a source owner or operator chooses the alternative that
allows the installation of an external zero device that allows COMS
removal from the stack every three years. Also, based on conversations
with manufacturers, the EPA believes that the risks for damage when
removing the COMS from the stack are minimal. Therefore, the
requirement to remove the COMS to conduct zero alignment audits is
finalized as proposed.
    Individual comments, as well as the EPA's summary and response to
the public comments, are available for public viewing in the docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The requirements in applicable
regulations are broad enough to include the information collection
requirements specified in Procedure 3. In addition, the requirements in
Procedure 3 are modeled after manufacturers' maintenance
recommendations. As a result, the EPA believes that most, if not all,
owners/operators are already following procedures similar to those
specified in Procedure 3. Therefore, there are no additional costs, or
reporting burden, associated with implementing Procedure 3.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of accessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any additional requirements on small entities.
This action establishes quality assurance/quality control procedures
for continuous opacity monitoring systems used for compliance purposes.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Rules establishing quality assurance requirements impose no costs
independent from national emission standards which require their use,
and such costs are fully reflected in the regulatory impact assessment
for those emission standards. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action establishes quality
assurance procedures for continuous opacity monitoring systems used to
demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards as specified
in new source performance standards (NSPS) promulgated by EPA pursuant
to section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b). It does not
add any emission limits and does not affect pollutant emissions or air
quality. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
establishes quality assurance procedures for continuous opacity
monitoring systems. It does not add any emission limits and does not
affect pollutant emissions or air quality. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However we identified no such standards except
ASTM D6216-12, and none were brought to our attention in comments.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6216-12.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule does not relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective November 12, 2014.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Continuous opacity
monitoring.

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Appendix F of part 60 is amended by adding Procedure 3 to read as
follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 3--Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

1.0 What are the purpose and applicability of Procedure 3?

    The purpose of Procedure 3 is to establish quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) procedures for continuous opacity monitoring
systems (COMS). Procedure 3 applies to COMS used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with opacity standards specified in new source
performance standards (NSPS) promulgated by EPA pursuant to section
111(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)--Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources.
    1.1 What are the data quality objectives of Procedure 3? The
overall data quality objective (DQO) of Procedure 3 is the
generation of valid and representative opacity data. Procedure 3
specifies the minimum requirements for controlling and assessing the
quality of COMS data submitted to us or the delegated regulatory
agency. Procedure 3 requires you to perform periodic evaluations of
a COMS performance and to develop and implement QA/QC programs to
ensure that COMS data quality is maintained.
    1.2 What is the intent of the QA/QC procedures specified in
Procedure 3? Procedure 3 is intended to establish the minimum QA/QC
requirements to verify and maintain an acceptable level of quality
of the data produced by COMS. It is presented in general terms to
allow you to develop a program that is most effective for your
circumstances.
    1.3 When must I comply with Procedure 3? You must comply with
Procedure 3 no later than November 12, 2014.

2.0 What are the basic functions of Procedure 3?

    The basic functions of Procedure 3 are assessment of the quality
of your COMS data and control and improvement of the quality of the
data by implementing QC requirements and corrective actions.
Procedure 3 provides requirements for:
    (1) Daily instrument zero and upscale drift checks and status
indicators checks;
    (2) Quarterly performance audits which include the following
assessments:
    (i) Optical alignment,
    (ii) Calibration error, and
    (iii) Zero compensation.

Sources that achieve quality assured data for four consecutive
quarters may reduce their auditing frequency to semi-annual. If a
performance audit is failed, the source must resume quarterly
testing for that audit requirement until it again demonstrates
successful performance over four consecutive quarters.
    (3) Annual zero alignment.

3.0 What special definitions apply to Procedure 3?

    The definitions in Procedure 3 include those provided in
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) of Appendix B of this part and
ASTM D6216-12 and the following additional definitions.
    3.1 Out-of-control periods. Out-of-control periods mean that one
or more COMS parameters falls outside of the acceptable limits
established by this rule.
    (1) Daily Assessments. Whenever the calibration drift (CD)
exceeds twice the specification of PS-1, the COMS is out-of-control.
The beginning of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding
to the completion of the daily calibration drift check. The end of
the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the
completion of appropriate adjustment and subsequent successful CD
assessment.
    (2) Quarterly and Annual Assessments. Whenever an annual zero
alignment or quarterly performance audit fails to meet the

criteria established in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 10.4, the
COMS is out-of-control. The beginning of the out-of-control period
is the time corresponding to the completion of the performance audit
indicating the failure to meet these established criteria. The end
of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the
completion of appropriate corrective actions and the subsequent
successful audit (or, if applicable, partial audit).

4.0 What interferences must I avoid?

    Opacity cannot be measured accurately in the presence of
condensed water vapor. Thus, COMS opacity compliance determinations
cannot be made when condensed water vapor is present, such as
downstream of a wet scrubber without a reheater or at other
saturated flue gas locations. Therefore, COMS must be located where
condensed water vapor is not present.

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the safety of persons using
Procedure 3?

    Those implementing Procedure 3 may be exposed to hazardous
materials, operations and equipment. Procedure 3 does not purport to
address all of the safety issues associated with its use. It is your
responsibility to establish appropriate health and safety practices
and determine the applicable regulatory limitations before
performing this procedure. You should consult the COMS user's manual
for specific precautions to take.

6.0 What equipment and supplies do I need?

    The equipment and supplies that you need are specified in PS-1.
You are not required to purchase a new COMS if your existing COMS
meets the requirements specified in Procedure 3.

7.0 What reagents and standards do I need?

    The reagents and standards that you need are specified in PS-1.
You are not required to purchase a new COMS if your existing COMS
meets the requirements specified in Procedure 3.

8.0 What sample collection, preservation, storage, and transport
are relevant to this procedure? [Reserved]

9.0 What quality control measures are required by this procedure
for my COMS?

    You must develop and implement a QC program for your COMS. Your
QC program must, at a minimum, include written procedures which
describe in detail complete step-by-step procedures and operations
for the activities in paragraphs (1) through (4):
    (1) Procedures for performing drift checks, including both zero
and upscale drift and the status indicators check,
    (2) Procedures for performing quarterly performance audits,
    (3) A means of checking the zero alignment of the COMS, and
    (4) A program of corrective action for a malfunctioning COMS.
The corrective action must include, at a minimum, the requirements
specified in section 10.5.
    9.1 What QA/QC documentation must I have? You are required to
keep the QA/QC written procedures required in section 9.0 on site
and available for inspection by us, the state, and/or local
enforcement agencies.
    9.2 What actions must I take if I fail QC audits? If you fail
two consecutive annual audits, two consecutive quarterly audits, or
five consecutive daily checks, you must either revise your QC
procedures or determine if your COMS is malfunctioning. If you
determine that your COMS is malfunctioning, you must take the
necessary corrective action as specified in section 10.5. If you
determine that your COMS requires extensive repairs, you may use a
substitute COMS provided the substitute meets the requirements in
section 10.6.

10.0 What calibration and standardization procedures must I perform
for my COMS?

    (1) You must perform daily system checks to ensure proper
operation of system electronics and optics, light and radiation
sources and detectors, electric or electro-mechanical systems, and
general stability of the system calibration. Daily is defined as any
portion of a calendar day in which a unit operates.
    (2) You must subject your COMS to a performance audit to include
checks of the individual COMS components and factors affecting the
accuracy of the monitoring data at least once per QA operating
quarter. A QA operating quarter is a calendar quarter in which a
unit operates at least 168 hours.
    (3) At least annually, you must perform a zero alignment by
comparing the COMS simulated zero to the actual clear path zero.
Annually is defined as a period wherein the unit is operating at
least 28 days in a calendar year. The simulated zero device produces
a simulated clear path condition or low-level opacity condition,
where the energy reaching the detector is between 90 and 110 percent
of the energy reaching the detector under actual clear path
conditions.
    10.1 What daily system checks must I perform on my COMS? The
specific components required to undergo daily system checks will
depend on the design details of your COMS. At a minimum, you must
verify the system operating parameters listed in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of this section. Some COMS may perform one or more of
these functions automatically or as an integral portion of unit
operations; other COMS may perform one or more of these functions
manually.
    (1) You must check the zero drift to ensure stability of your
COMS response to the simulated zero device. The simulated zero
device, an automated mechanism within the transmissometer that
produces a simulated clear path condition or low-level opacity
condition, is used to check the zero drift. You must, at a minimum,
take corrective action on your COMS whenever the daily zero drift
exceeds twice the applicable drift specification in section 13.3(6)
of PS-1.
    (2) You must check the upscale drift to ensure stability of your
COMS response to the upscale drift value. The upscale calibration
device, an automated mechanism (employing an attenuator or reduced
reflectance device) within the transmissometer that produces an
upscale opacity value is used to check the upscale drift. You must,
at a minimum, take corrective action on your COMS whenever the daily
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification
in section 13.3(6) of PS-1.
    (3) You must, at a minimum, check the status indicators, data
acquisition system error messages, and other system self-diagnostic
indicators. You must take appropriate corrective action based on the
manufacturer's recommendations when the COMS is operating outside
preset limits.
    10.2 What are the quarterly auditing requirements for my COMS?
At a minimum, the parameters listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section must be included in the performance audit conducted on
a quarterly basis as defined in section 10.0(2).
    (1) For units with automatic zero compensation, you must
determine the zero compensation for the COMS. The value of the zero
compensation applied at the time of the audit must be calculated as
equivalent opacity and corrected to stack exit conditions according
to the procedures specified by the manufacturer. The compensation
applied to the effluent by the monitor system must be recorded.
    (2) You must conduct a three-point calibration error test of the
COMS. Three calibration attenuators, either primary or secondary
must meet the requirements of PS-1, with one exception. Instead of
recalibrating the attenuators semi-annually, they must be
recalibrated annually. If two annual calibrations agree within 0.5
percent opacity, the attenuators may then be calibrated once every
five years. The three attenuators must be placed in the COMS light
beam path for at least three nonconsecutive readings. All monitor
responses must then be independently recorded from the COMS
permanent data recorder. Additional guidance for conducting this
test is included in section 8.1(3)(ii) of PS-1. The low-, mid-, and
high-range calibration error results must be computed as the mean
difference and 95 percent confidence interval for the difference
between the expected and actual responses of the monitor as
corrected to stack exit conditions. The equations necessary to
perform the calculations are found in section 12.0 of PS-1. For the
calibration error test method, you must use the external audit
device. When the external audit device is installed, with no
calibration attenuator inserted, the COMS measurement reading must
be less than or equal to one percent opacity. You must also document
procedures for properly handling and storing the external audit
device and calibration attenuators within your written QC program.
    (3) You must check the optical alignment of the COMS in
accordance with the instrument manufacturer's recommendations. If
the optical alignment varies with stack temperature, perform the
optical alignment test when the unit is operating.
    10.3 What are the annual auditing requirements for my COMS?
    (1) You must perform the primary zero alignment method under
clear path conditions. The COMS must be removed from its
installation and set up under clear path conditions. There must be
no adjustments to the monitor other than the

establishment of the proper monitor path length and correct optical
alignment of the COMS components. You must record the COMS response
to a clear condition and to the COMS's simulated zero condition as
percent opacity corrected to stack exit conditions. For a COMS with
automatic zero compensation, you must disconnect or disable the zero
compensation mechanism or record the amount of correction applied to
the COMS's simulated zero condition. The response difference in
percent opacity to the clear path and simulated zero conditions must
be recorded as the zero alignment error. You must adjust the COMS's
simulated zero device to provide the same response as the clear path
condition as specified in paragraph (3) of section 10.0.
    (2) As an alternative, monitors capable of allowing the
installation of an external zero device may use the device for the
zero alignment provided that: (1) The external zero device setting
has been established for the monitor path length and recorded for
the specific COMS by comparison of the COMS responses to the
installed external zero device and to the clear path condition, and
(2) the external zero device is demonstrated to be capable of
producing a consistent zero response when it is repeatedly (i.e.,
three consecutive installations and removals prior to conducting the
final zero alignment check) installed on the COMS. This can be
demonstrated by either the manufacturer's certificate of conformance
(MCOC) or actual on-site performance. The external zero device
setting must be permanently set at the time of initial zeroing to
the clear path zero value and protected when not in use to ensure
that the setting equivalent to zero opacity does not change. The
external zero device response must be checked and recorded prior to
initiating the zero alignment. If the external zero device setting
has changed, you must remove the COMS from the stack in order to
reset the external zero device. If you employ an external zero
device, you must perform the zero alignment audits with the COMS off
the stack at least every three years. If the external zero device is
adjusted within the three-year period, you must perform the zero
alignment with the COMS off the stack no later than three years from
the date of adjustment.
    (3) The procedure in section 6.8 of ASTM D6216-12 is allowed.
    10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy? Unless
specified otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for
excessive inaccuracy are listed in paragraphs (1) through (4).
    (1) What is the criterion for excessive zero or upscale drift?
Your COMS is out-of-control if either the zero drift check or
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification
in PS-1 for any one day.
    (2) What is the criterion for excessive zero alignment? Your
COMS is out-of-control if the zero alignment error exceeds 2 percent
opacity.
    (3) What is the criterion to pass the quarterly performance
audit? Your COMS is out-of-control if the results of a quarterly
performance audit indicate noncompliance with the following
criteria:
    (i) The optical alignment indicator does not show proper
alignment (i.e., does not fall within a specific reference mark or
condition).
    (ii) The zero compensation exceeds 4 percent opacity, or
    (iii) The calibration error exceeds 3 percent opacity.
    (4) What is the criterion for data capture? You must adhere to
the data capture criterion specified in the applicable subpart.
    10.5 What corrective action must I take if my COMS is
malfunctioning? You must have a corrective action program in place
to address the repair and/or maintenance of your COMS. The
corrective action program must address routine/preventative
maintenance and various types of analyzer repairs. The corrective
action program must establish what diagnostic testing must be
performed after each type of activity to ensure that the COMS is
collecting valid, quality-assured data. Recommended maintenance and
repair procedures and diagnostic testing after repairs may be found
in an associated guidance document.
    10.6 What requirements must I meet if I use a temporary opacity
monitor?
    (1) In the event that your certified opacity monitor has to be
removed for extended service, you may install a temporary
replacement monitor to obtain required opacity emissions data
provided that:
    (i) The temporary monitor has been certified according to ASTM
D6216-12 for which a MCOC has been provided;
    (ii) The use of the temporary monitor does not exceed 1080 hours
(45 days) of operation per year as a replacement for a fully
certified opacity monitor. After that time, the analyzer must
complete a full certification according to PS-1 prior to further use
as a temporary replacement monitor. Once a temporary replacement
monitor has been installed and required testing and adjustments have
been successfully completed, it cannot be replaced by another
temporary replacement monitor to avoid the full PS-1 certification
testing required after 1080 hours (45 days) of use;
    (iii) The temporary monitor has been installed and successfully
completed an optical alignment assessment and status indicator
assessment;
    (iv) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an off-
stack clear path zero assessment and zero calibration value
adjustment procedure;
    (v) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an
abbreviated zero and upscale drift check consisting of seven zero
and upscale calibration value drift checks which may be conducted
within a 24-hour period with not more than one calibration drift
check every three hours and not less than one calibration drift
check every 25 hours. Calculated zero and upscale drift requirements
are the same as specified for the normal PS-1 certification;
    (vi) The temporary monitor has successfully completed a three-
point calibration error test;
    (vii) The upscale reference calibration check value of the new
monitor has been updated in the associated data recording equipment;
    (viii) The overall calibration of the monitor and data recording
equipment has been verified; and
    (ix) The user has documented all of the above in the maintenance
log.
    (2) Data generated by the temporary monitor is considered valid
when paragraphs (i) through (ix) in this section have been met.
    10.7 When do out-of-control periods begin and end? The out-of-
control periods are as specified in section 3.1.
    10.8 What are the limitations on the use of my COMS data
collected during out-of-control periods? During the period your COMS
is out-of-control, you may not use your COMS data to calculate
emission compliance or to meet minimum data capture requirements in
this procedure or the applicable regulation.
    10.9 What are the QA/QC reporting requirements for my COMS? You
must report in a Data Assessment Report (DAR) the information
required by sections 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 for your COMS at the
interval specified in the applicable regulation.
    10.10 What minimum information must I include in my DAR? At a
minimum, you must include the information listed in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this section in the DAR.
    (1) Name of person completing the report and facility address,
    (2) Identification and location of your COMS(s),
    (3) Manufacturer, model, and serial number of your COMS(s),
    (4) Assessment of COMS data accuracy/acceptability and date of
assessment as determined by a performance audit described in section
10.0. If the accuracy audit results show your COMS to be out-of-
control, you must report both the audit results showing your COMS to
be out-of-control and the results of the audit following corrective
action showing your COMS to be operating within specifications, and
    (5) Summary of all corrective actions you took when you
determined your COMS was out-of-control.
    10.11 Where and how long must I retain the QA data that this
procedure requires me to record for my COMS? You must keep the
records required by this procedure for your COMS on site and
available for inspection by us, the state, and/or the local
enforcement agency for the period specified in the regulations
requiring the use of COMS.

11.0 What analytical procedures apply to this procedure? [Reserved]

12.0 What calculations and data analysis must I perform for my
COMS? The calculations required for the quarterly performance audit
are in section 12.0 of PS-1.

13.0 Method Performance [Reserved]

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 References

    16.1 Performance Specification 1-Specifications and Test
Procedures for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B.
    16.2 ASTM D6216-12-Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance

Specifications, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

17.0 What tables, diagrams, flowcharts, and validation data are
relevant to this procedure? [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2014-11226 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 50064]
[DOCID:fr25au08-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Greater Beardstown Airport, Beardstown, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of airport land from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use and to authorize the exchange of the property for
land needed to protect the transitional surface of Runway 18/36. The
proposal consists of a 2.1-acre portion of Parcel 1 in exchange for 9.6
acres of Parcel 3. Presently the 2.1 acres of Parcel 1 is located
outside of the fenced in portion of airport property and any protected
zone (runway protection zone, object free area, object free zone, etc.)
This land is currently being used as residential and has a mobile home
located on it. Parcel 1 was acquired in 1986 with Federal
participation. It is the intent of the City of Beardstown, as owner and
operator of the Greater Beardstown Airport (K06) to exchange the
subject portion of Parcel 1 (2.1 Acres) to Ms. Hardwick, Beardstown, IL
in exchange for 9.6 acres of land (portion of Parcel 3), which is in
the side transition area of Runway 18/36. This notice announces that
the FAA is considering the proposal to authorize the exchange of the
subject airport property at the Greater Beardstown Airport, Beardstown,
IL with a portion of Parcel 3 (9.6 acres). Approval does not constitute
a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in disposal of the
subject airport property nor a determination that all measures covered
by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin Mello, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number 847-294-
7195/FAX Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may
be reviewed at this same location by appointment or at the Illinois
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, 1 Langhorne Bond
Drive, Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport, Springfield, IL 62707.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the
properties being exchanged located in Beardstown, Cass County,
Illinois, and described as follows:

Portion of Parcel 1

    Part of the Southwest Quarter (SW\1/4\) of Section Twenty-five
(25), Township Eighteen (18) North, Range Twelve (12) West of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cass County, Illinois, being more particularly
described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the
Southwest Quarter (SW\1/4\) of said Section Twenty-five (25); thence
South 89[deg]56'00'' East (basis of bearing is Illinois State Plane
Coordinate System. NAID 83, Illinois West Zone) along the South line of
said Quarter Section a distanced 1658.91 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence continuing South 89[deg]56'00'' East along the South
line of said Quarter Section a distance of 330.00 feet; thence North
00[deg]01'41'' West a distance of 280.00 feet; thence North
89[deg]56'00'' West a distance of 330.00 feet; thence South
00[deg]01'41'' East a distance of 280.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
    Said parcel contains 2.12 acres more or less.

In Exchange for a Portion of Parcel 9

    Part of the West Half (W\1/2\) of the Northwest Quarter (NW \1/4\),
and part of the Northwest Quarter (NW\1/4\) of the Southwest Quarter
(SW\1/4\), all in Section Thirty-six (36), Township Eighteen (18)
North, Range Twelve (12) West of the Third Principal Meridian, Cass
County, Illinois, being more particularly described as follows:
    Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW \1/
4\) of said Section Thirty-six (36); thence South 89[deg]56'00'' East
(basis of bearing is Illinois State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 83,
Illinois West Zone) along the North line of said Quarter Section a
distance of 1119.00 feet; thence South 00[deg]02'04'' East a distance
of 600.00 feet to a found concrete marker, said marker being a corner
on the East line of a tract of land conveyed to the City of Beardstown,
Illinois by a Deed of Conveyance, recorded October 1, 1993 as Document
No. 108036 in the Office of the Recorder of Cass County, Illinois, and
said marker also being the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing
South 00[deg]02'04'' East along the East line of said tract a distance
of 3350.05 feet to a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW\1/4\) of the Southwest Quarter (SW\1/4\) of said Section Thirty-six
(36); thence South 89[deg]53'25'' East along the South line of the
Northwest Quarter (NW\1/4\) of the Southwest Quarter (SW\1/4\) of said
Section Thirty-six (36) a distance of 120.00 feet; thence North
00[deg]02'04'' West a distance of 2835.14 feet; thence South
89[deg]56'00'' East a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North
00[deg]02'04'' West a distance of 515.00 feet; thence North
89[deg]56'00'' West a distance of 150.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
    Said parcel contains 9.58 acres, more or less.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on August 13, 2008.
Jack Delaney,
Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. E8-19566 Filed 8-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53487-53489]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87187; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-072]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Make
Minor Updates to and Relocate Chapter XIX, Which Governs the Hearings
and Review Process for Persons Aggrieved by Exchange Action, of the
Currently Effective Rulebook, to Proposed Chapter 15 of the Shell
Structure for the Exchange's Rulebook

October 1, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 27, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to make minor updates to and relocate Chapter XIX, which governs the
hearings and review process for persons aggrieved by Exchange action,
of the currently effective Rulebook (``current Rulebook'') to proposed
Chapter 15 of the shell structure for the Exchange's Rulebook that will
become effective upon the migration of the Exchange's trading platform
to the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges (as defined
below) (``shell Rulebook''). The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align
certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences,
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to the
same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange
expects to complete on October 7, 2019. In connection with this
technology migration, the Exchange has a shell Rulebook that resides
alongside its current Rulebook, which shell Rulebook will contain the
Rules that will be in place upon completion of the Cboe Options
technology migration.
    The Exchange proposes to relocate and reorganize current Chapter
XIX, which governs the hearings and review process for persons
aggrieved by Exchange action, into proposed Chapter 15 in the shell
Rulebook. The Exchange notes that in addition to relocating and
reorganizing the current rules, the proposed rule change deletes these
rules from the current Rulebook. The proposed rule change relocates
and, where applicable, reorganizes the rules as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Shell rule                          Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.1 Scope.............................  19.1 Scope, which incorporates
                                          19.1.01 into body of rule.
15.2 Submission of Application to        19.2 Submission of Application
 Exchange.                                to Exchange.
15.3 Procedure Following Applications    19.3 Procedure Following
 for Hearing.                             Applications for Hearing.
15.4 Hearing...........................  19.4 Hearing, which
                                          incorporates 19.4.01 into body
                                          of shell 15.4(a).
15.5 Review............................  19.5 Review.
15.6 Miscellaneous Provisions..........  19.6 Miscellaneous Provisions.
15.7 Requests for Verification of Fees
 and Charges:
    15.7(a)............................  19.50 Scope of Part B.
    15.7(b)............................  19.51 Definitions.

    15.7(c)-(f)........................  19.52 Requests for
                                          Verification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes make only non-substantive changes to the
rules in order to update and/or headings that better flow with the
relocated and reorganized rules, update cross-references to other rules
and chapters that will be implemented upon migration, update certain
technical text formatting that will be used in the Rules upon migration
(e.g., using words for numbers below 10 in the rule text and numerals
for numbers above 10 in the rule text), incorporate defined terms, and
reformat the paragraph lettering and numbering.
    Additionally, the proposed rule change deletes ``Part B'' from the
current rule, as there is no Part A, and combines all rule provisions
in current Part B into a single rule, as they all relate to a procedure
that may be used instead of the procedure set forth in current Rules
19.1 through 19.6 (proposed Rules 15.1 through 15.6) if permitted by
the Rules. The Exchange believes this reorganization simplifies these
Rules and eliminates potential confusion given the lack of a Part A in
this Chapter.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not make any substantive changes to
the rules and is merely intended to consolidate and reorganize the
Exchange's Rules in anticipation of the technology migration on October
7, 2019. The Exchange believes that the non-substantive proposed
changes, which update technical text and formatting (e.g., paragraph
headings and number-related references), update rule cross-references,
and consolidate and reorganize rules and rule paragraphs and/or
Interpretations and Policies, will foster cooperation and coordination
with those facilitating transactions in securities and remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system by simplifying the Exchange Rules and Rulebook
as a whole, and making its Rules easier to follow and understand, which
will also result in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange reiterates that
the proposed rule change is being proposed in the context of a
technology migration of the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, and not as a
competitive filing. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because
it does not make any substantive changes to the current Exchange Rules.
The proposed rule change merely intends to provide consolidated rules
upon migration and is consistent with the technical text and formatting
in the shell Rulebook that will be in place come October 7, 2019. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition because the proposed rules are the
same as the Exchange's current rules, all of which have all been
previously filed with the Commission.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is appropriate
because, as the Exchange discussed above, its proposal does not make
any substantive changes to the Exchange Rules, and only consolidates
and reorganizes the rules in Chapter XIX, which governs the hearings
and review process for persons aggrieved by Exchange action, and moves
them to the shell Rulebook that the Exchange wishes to maintain post
migration. Accordingly, its proposal is designed to preserve its
hearings and review process rules after October 7, 2019. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because the
proposal does not raise any new or novel issues

and makes only non-substantive changes to the rules. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal as operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-072 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-072. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-072 and should be submitted on
or before October 28, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21730 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P