[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16676-16681]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97134; File No. SR-C2-2023-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Fees Schedule

March 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 28, 2023, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
update its Fees Schedule. 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://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services, LLC
(``CDS'') section of its Fees Schedule.\3\ Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to (i) reformat the section of its Fees Schedule pertaining to
market data fees, (ii) harmonize various market data related
definitions to align with the definitions used by the Exchange's
affiliates and (iii) modify its fees relating to the distribution of
the BBO data feed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
January 3, 2023 (SR-C2-2023-001). On February 28, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
    \4\ The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the
following information: (i) outstanding quotes and standing orders at
the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii)
executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer
versus non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (``BBO'');
(iv) all-or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to
the BBO; (v) expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi)
end-of-day summaries by product, including open, high, low, and
closing price during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any
time there is a change in the open, high, low or last sale price of
a listed option; (vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and
codes for all listed options contracts. The quote and last sale data
contained in the BBO data feed is identical to the data sent to the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') for redistribution to
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reformatting
    The Exchange first proposes to eliminate references to CDS and
rename the section ``Market Data Fees'' to align with the heading of
its affiliates, BZX Options and EDGX Options. The Exchange notes that
no substantive changes are being made with the elimination of the
references to CDS fees. Rather, the proposed change more accurately
reflects the Exchange's role as it relates to its market data products
as CDS is merely an affiliate that is the Cboe contracting entity for
all U.S. equities and options market data products, but the data
products themselves are made available by the Exchange. The Exchange
also proposes to reformat the layout of the fees under the Cboe Data
Services, LLC (``CDS'') section of the Fees Schedule to align with
formatting of the corresponding section in the fees schedules of the
Exchange's options exchanges, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options'')
and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options''), including adding a new
``Definitions'' section under the CDS Fees (or as proposed, the Market
Data Fees) section.
Definitions
    In order to provide consistent rules and terminology amongst the
Exchange and its affiliated options exchanges, Cboe Options Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options'') and
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') (collectively,
``Affiliates'') the Exchange is proposing to amend various definitions
and product names to harmonize with such terms used by its affiliates
BZX Options and EDGX Options, specifically.\5\ As such, the proposed
rule change deletes a defined term, adds certain defined terms, and
makes certain non-substantive changes to existing definitions, as
further described in the table below. The proposed rule change makes
these changes throughout the market data fee language to conform to the
proposed defined terms and the Exchange uses the proposed updated terms
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cboe Options will be submitting a similar filing to
harmonize its definitions and products names to align with those of
BZX Options and EDGX Options as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Description of
           Defined term                        Provision                Current location           change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer..........................  A ``Customer'' is any person,    Section I of the Cboe  Deletes defined term
                                     company or other entity that,    Data Services, LLC     to align terms with
                                     pursuant to a market data        (``CDS'') Section of   BZX Options and
                                     agreement with CDS, is           the Fees Schedule.     EDGX Options. The
                                     entitled to receive data,                               concept of
                                     either directly from CDS or                             ``Customer'' is
                                     through an authorized                                   also better
                                     redistributor (i.e., a                                  captured through
                                     Customer or an extranet                                 the proposed new
                                     service provider), whether                              term
                                     that data is distributed                                ``Distributor''.
                                     externally or used internally.
                                     A third-party vendor of an
                                     Approved Third-Party Device,
                                     as defined in the CDS Fee
                                     Schedule, is not a Customer
                                     unless it has a market data
                                     agreement in place with CDS. A
                                     Floor Broker User, as defined
                                     in the CDS Fee Schedule, is
                                     not a Customer unless it has a
                                     market data agreement in place
                                     with CDS.
Distributor.......................  A Distributor of an Exchange     N/A..................  Codifies definition
                                     Market Data product is any                              of ``Distributor''
                                     entity that receives the                                under new
                                     Exchange Market Data product                            ``Definitions''
                                     directly from the Exchange or                           section of the C2
                                     indirectly through another                              Options Fees
                                     entity and then distributes it                          Schedule.
                                     internally or externally to a                           Definition is
                                     third party.                                            identical to the
                                                                                definition used by
                                                                                BZX Options and
                                                                                EDGX Options and
                                                                                substantially
                                                                                similar to the
                                                                                language in the
                                                                                first sentence of
                                                                                the definition of
                                                                                ``Customer'' in the
                                                                                Fees Schedule.
Internal Distributor..............  An Internal Distributor of an    N/A..................  Codifies definition
                                     Exchange Market Data product                            of `` Internal
                                     is a Distributor that receives                          Distributor under
                                     the Exchange Market Data                                new ``Definitions''
                                     product and then distributes                            section of the C2
                                     that data to one or more Users                          Options Fees
                                     within the Distributor's own                            Schedule.
                                     entity.                                                 Definition is
                                                                                identical to the
                                                                                definition used by
                                                                                BZX Options and
                                                                                EDGX Options.
External Distributor..............  An External Distributor of an    N/A..................  Codifies definition
                                     Exchange Market Data product                            of ``External
                                     is a Distributor that receives                          Distributor'' under
                                     the Exchange Market Data                                new ``Definitions''
                                     product and then distributes                            section of the C2
                                     that data to a third party or                           Options Fees
                                     one or more Users outside the                           Schedule.
                                     Distributor's own entity.                               Definition is
                                                                                identical to the
                                                                                definition used by
                                                                                BZX Options and
                                                                                EDGX Options.

User..............................  A User of an Exchange Market     N/A..................  Codifies definition
                                     Data product is a natural                               of ``User'' under
                                     person, a proprietorship,                               new ``Definitions''
                                     corporation, partnership, or                            section of the C2
                                     entity, or device (computer or                          Options Fees
                                     other automated service), that                          Schedule.
                                     is entitled to receive                                  Definition is
                                     Exchange data.                                          identical to one
                                                                                used by BZX Options
                                                                                and EDGX Options.
Non-Professional User.............  A ``Non-Professional User'' is   Sections I and III...  Relocates definition
                                     a natural person or qualifying                          under new
                                     trust that uses Data only for                           ``Definitions''
                                     personal purposes and not for                           section of the C2
                                     any commercial purpose and,                             Options Fees
                                     for a natural person who works                          Schedule and
                                     in the United States, is not:                           updates the rule
                                     (i) registered or qualified in                          reference to
                                     any capacity with the                                   ``Section 201(11)''
                                     Securities and Exchange                                 of the Investment
                                     Commission, the Commodities                             Advisors Act of
                                     Futures Trading Commission,                             1940 to ``Section
                                     any state securities agency,                            202(a)(11)''.
                                     any securities exchange or
                                     association, or any
                                     commodities or futures
                                     contract market or
                                     association; (ii) engaged as
                                     an ``investment adviser'' as
                                     that term is defined in
                                     Section 201(11) of the
                                     Investment Advisors Act of
                                     1940 (whether or not
                                     registered or qualified under
                                     that Act); or (iii) employed
                                     by a bank or other
                                     organization exempt from
                                     registration under federal or
                                     state securities laws to
                                     perform functions that would
                                     require registration or
                                     qualification if such
                                     functions were performed for
                                     an organization not so exempt;
                                     or, for a natural person who
                                     works outside of the United
                                     States, does not perform the
                                     same functions as would
                                     disqualify such person as a
                                     Non-Professional User if he or
                                     she worked in the United
                                     States.
Professional User.................  A Professional User of an        Sections I and III...  Relocates definition
                                     Exchange Market Data product                            under new
                                     is any natural person                                   ``Definitions''
                                     recipient of an Exchange                                section of the C2
                                     Market Data product who is not                          Options Fees
                                     a Non-Professional User.                                Schedule
Display Only Service..............  A ``Display Only Service''       Section I............  Relocates definition
                                     allows a natural person end-                            under new
                                     user to view and manipulate                             ``Definitions''
                                     data using the Distributor's                            section of the C2
                                     computerized service, but not                           Options Fees
                                     to save, copy, export or                                Schedule
                                     transfer the data or any
                                     results of the manipulation to
                                     any other computer hardware,
                                     software or media, except for
                                     printing it to paper or other
                                     non-magnetic media.
Device............................  A ``Device'' means any           N/A..................  Adds new definition
                                     computer, workstation or other                          under new
                                     item of equipment, fixed or                             ``Definitions''
                                     portable, that receives,                                section of the C2
                                     accesses and/or displays data                           Options Fees
                                     in visual, audible or other                             Schedule.
                                     form.                                                   Definition is
                                                                                identical to one
                                                                                used by Cboe
                                                                                Options.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename the following market data
products and fees and use the proposed names herein, in order to align
with the naming convention used by the Exchange's affiliates, BZX
Options, EDGX Options and Cboe Options, as applicable for similar data
products and fees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See BZX Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees and
EDGX Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data Fees. See also Cboe
Data Services, LLC Fees Schedule, Section V. System Fees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Current name                         Proposed name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBO Data Feed.............................  C2 Options Top.
Book Depth Data Feed......................  C2 Options Depth.
Complex Order Book (COB) Data Feed........  C2 Complex Order Book (COB).
Port Fee..................................  Data Access Fee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to eliminate, modify and
adopt the terms discussed above will add additionally transparency to
the Fees Schedule and will protect investors, as the changes provide
more clarity within the rule and more harmonized rule language across
the Fees Schedules of the Cboe affiliated options exchanges. Further,
the Exchange notes that the changes are non-substantive changes or
provide additional detail in the rule regarding current market
participants that purchase or use the Exchange's market data products.
None of these differences impact the manner in which any of the terms
and corresponding fees apply, including how the Exchange would have
otherwise characterized a Distributor or User (Professional or Non-
Professional).
C2 Options Top Fee Changes
    The Exchange first proposes to modify its current User Fees. The
Exchange currently charges a ``User Fee'' of $50 per month per Device
or user ID for use of the data in the C2 Options Top Data Feed by
``Display Only Service'' users. The current User fee is payable only
for ``external'' Display Only Service users who receive C2 Options
Top.\7\ Internal Distributors may currently distribute C2 Options Top
Data to an unlimited number of internal users and Devices within the
Distributor at no further cost. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the
current C2 Options Top User fee and in its place adopt Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for C2 Options Top that would apply to both
Internal and External Distributors for all Professional and Non-
Professional Users. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to charge C2
Options Top Distributors a monthly fee of $5.00 per Professional Users
User and a monthly fee of $0.10 per Non-Professional User.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to the Cboe Global Markets North American Data
Policies, Distributors must report the number of authorized external
devices that receive C2 Options Top data during a calendar month
within 15 days after such month in the manner and format specified
by the Exchange from time to time to determine applicable fees.
    \8\ Distributors that receive C2 Options Top Data will be
required to count every Professional User and Non-Professional User
to which they provide the data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $10,000 per month
Enterprise Fee that will permit a Distributor to purchase a monthly
(and optional) Enterprise license to receive the C2 Options Top Data
for distribution

to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The
Enterprise Fee is an alternative to Professional and Non-Professional
User fees and will permit a Distributor to pay a flat fee to receive
the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the Fee Schedule.
Like User fees, the Enterprise Fee would be assessed in addition to the
Distribution Fees. The Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to
reduce fees. For example, if a Distributor has 10,000 Professional
Users who each receive C2 Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed),
then that Distributor will pay $50,000 per month in Professional Users
fees. If the Distributor instead were to purchase the proposed
Enterprise license, it would alternatively pay a flat fee of $10,000
for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A
Distributor must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity that
controls the display of C2 Options Top if it wishes for such Users to
be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees.\9\ A
Distributor that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its
number of such Users on a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, the
recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total
number of Professional and Non-Professional Users users of C2 Options
Top.\10\ The Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license
is voluntary, and a firm may elect to instead use the per User
structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fees described above.
For example, a firm that does not have a sufficient number of Users to
benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if a Distributor that distributes C2 Options
Top to Retail Brokerage Firm A and Retail Brokerage Firm B and
wishes to have the Users under each firm covered by an Enterprise
license, the Distributor would be subject to two Enterprise Fees.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ 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
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options
exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share.\14\
The Exchange believes top-of-book quotation and transaction data is
highly competitive as national securities exchanges compete vigorously
with each other to provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data to a
wide range of investors and market participants. Indeed, there are
several competing products offered by other national securities
exchanges today, not counting products offered by the Exchange's
affiliates, and each of the Exchange's affiliated U.S. options
exchanges also offers similar top-of-book data.\15\ Each of those
exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and last sale information based
on their own quotation and trading activity that is substantially
similar to the information provided by the Exchange through the C2
Options Top Feed. Further, the quote and last sale data contained in
the C2 Options Data Feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public.\16\ Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book
data is widely available today from a number of different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (February 24, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \15\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule, MIAX Options Exchange, Fee Schedule, Section 6 (Market
Data Fees), Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10
(Proprietary Data Feed Fees) and Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees
Schedule.
    \16\ The Exchange notes that it makes available the BBO data and
last sale data that is included in the C2 Options Top Data Feed no
earlier than the time at which the Exchange sends that data to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the C2 Options Top Data Feed is distributed and purchased
on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data
available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at
any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. Additionally, only those Distributors
that deem a product to be of sufficient overall value and usefulness
would purchase them for distribution to Users. Further, Distributors
are not required to distribute, and Users are not required to receive,
any one particular data product and may choose to receive none, one, or
several of the Exchange's market data products. Indeed less than 25% of
the Exchange's market data subscriptions is for C2 Options Top. As
described above, market participants have a wide variety of alternative
market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary
data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data.
Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data
products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers. Moreover, persons (including broker-dealers) who subscribe
to any exchange proprietary data feed must also have equivalent access
to consolidated Options Information \17\ from OPRA for the same classes
or series of options that are included in the proprietary data feed,
and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular
requirement.\18\ As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Consolidated Options Information'' means consolidated
Last Sale Reports combined with either consolidated Quotation
Information or the BBO furnished by OPRA. Access to consolidated
Options Information is deemed ``equivalent'' if both kinds of
information are equally accessible on the same terminal or work
station. See Limited Liability Company Agreement of Options Price
Reporting Authority, LLC (``OPRA Plan''), Section 5.2(c)(iii). The
Exchange notes that this requirement under the OPRA Plan is also
reiterated under the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and
Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which subscribers
to any exchange proprietary product must sign and are subject to,
respectively. Additionally, the Exchange's Data Order Form (used for
requesting the Exchange's market data products) requires
confirmation that the requesting market participant receives data
from OPRA.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance

of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also,
recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been
remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader
forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \19\
Making similar data products available to market participants fosters
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchange's data product as more or less attractive than the
competition they can and do switch between similar products. The
proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the
Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers of C2 Options Top
Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to adopt new
Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as the User
fees continue to be to be in line with User fees assessed by other
exchanges for similar data.\20\ Moreover, External users will now be
subject to lower fees as the Exchange proposes to significantly reduce
the monthly User fees from $50 per External User to $5.00 per
Professional User or $0.10 per Non-Professional User. Although External
Distributors are currently only subject to fees for external users, the
fee for external users (which are likely to be Non-Professional Users)
are significantly lower (i.e., $0.10 per Non-Professional User) than
the current $50 fee for external users. Moreover, the proposed fee
structure of differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees that
are paid by both Internal and External Distributors has long been used
by other exchanges, including the Exchange, for their proprietary data
products, and by the OPRA plan in order to reduce the price of data to
retail investors and make it more broadly available.\21\ The Exchange
also believes offering C2 Options Top to Non-Professional Users at a
lower cost than Professional Users results in greater equity among data
recipients, as Professional Users are categorized as such based on
their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are
compensated to participate in the markets. Although Non-Professional
Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their
participation in the markets, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the
markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to
Distributors for their Professional and Non-professional Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See e.g., Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section
10 (Proprietary Data Feed Fees), which provides for a fee of $40 per
month to professional users and $1.00 per month to non-professional
users to cover the usage of PHLX Options (TOPO) Data, TOPO Plus
Orders, PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth Data feeds. See also NYSE
American Options Proprietary Market Data Fees schedule, which
provides for a fee of $50 per month to professional users and $1.00
per month to non-professional users of American Options Top Data,
American Options Deep and American Options Complex products. By
comparison, the total Professional User fee for C2 Options Top and
C2 Options COB is in line, and in fact lower than the above
Professional User fee at $30 per Professional User (i.e., $5 per
Professional Users of C2 Options Top, as proposed, and $25 per
Professional User of C2 Options COB). The Exchange's combined Non-
Professional User Fee at $0.10 per Non-Professional User (i.e.,
$0.30 per Non-Professional User of C2 Options Top, as proposed, and
$0 per Non-Professional User of C2 Options COB) is lower than PHLX's
and NYSE American's aforementioned Non-Professional User fees. C2
Options Depth does not charge users based on Professional or Non-
Professional classification and market participants have always been
subject to separate User fees across C2 Options market data
products.
    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March
9, 2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131)
(establishing the $15 Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE
OpenBook); See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67589
(August 2, 2012), 77 FR 47459 (August 8, 2012) (revising OPRA's
definition of the term ``Nonprofessional''); and See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 62798
(October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087) (establishing Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for Cboe Options COB Data Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Enterprise Fee for C2 Options Top Feed is equitable
and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for
Distributors with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users. If a Distributor has a smaller number of Professional Users of
C2 Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User structure
and benefit from the proposed per C2 Options Top User Fee reductions.
By reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of
Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that
more firms may choose to receive and to distribute C2 Options Top Data,
thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit
of investors.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the
number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather
will only have to count Professional and Non-Professional users every
six months, which is a significant reduction in administrative burden.
Finally, as described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A
firm that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of the license need not do so.
    The Exchange lastly believes the proposed changes relating to the
defined terms and terminology will provide additional specificity and
clarity, while also harmonizing the various definition with that of its
affiliates. Doing so would ensure consistent terms amongst the Exchange
and its affiliates, thereby reducing the potential for confusion
amongst market data subscribers of the Exchange's and its affiliates'
market data products. Additionally, the proposed new terms are
identical to the terms already used by the Exchange's affiliates BZX
Options and EDGX Options. Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposal
to reformate the fees will provide for a more streamlined fees
schedule, thereby reducing potential confusion. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes the proposed changes remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is
broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges and through
OPRA. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to
market participants and investors, including products offered by
certain competing exchanges, as well as OPRA. In this competitive
environment potential Distributors are free to choose which competing
product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information.
Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to
purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as market participants
seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants.

As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all similarly situated
recipient firms of C2 Options Top on an equal and non-discriminatory
basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for Professional
and Non-Professional Users of C2 Options Top is appropriate given
Professional Users are categorized as such based on their employment
and participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to
participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too can receive
significant financial benefits through their participation in the
markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more
to those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The
Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor
penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner
that would impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden
on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market
participants are not forced to subscribe to C2 Options Top Data, or any
of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. As noted, the quote
and last sale data contained in the Exchange's C2 Option Top feed is
identical to the data sent to OPRA for redistribution to the public.
Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book data is widely available today from a
number of different sources.
    Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds,
an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk
that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures
ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue
burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so
here.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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) of the Act \22\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \23\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2023-007 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-C2-2023-007. 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-C2-2023-007 and should be submitted on
or before April 10, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05541 Filed 3-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52113-52114]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4329]

Determination That KENALOG (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Ointment,
0.025% and 0.1%, and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale
for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This
determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw
approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to
these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs
that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and
regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the
listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if
FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or
effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could
result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the
listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table are
no longer being marketed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Application No.                   Drug name              Active ingredient(s)       Strength(s)         Dosage form/route          Applicant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 011600................  KENALOG.........................  Triamcinolone          0.025%; 0.1%.........  Ointment; Topical....  Mylan
                                                               Acetonide.                                                           Pharmaceuticals,
                                                                                Inc.
NDA 012827................  ROBINUL.........................  Glycopyrrolate.......  1 milligram (mg).....  Tablet; Oral.........  Casper Pharma LLC.
                            ROBINUL FORTE...................  Glycopyrrolate.......  2 mg.................  Tablet; Oral.........
NDA 018029................  RITALIN-SR......................  Methylphenidate        20 mg................  Extended-Release       Novartis
                                                               Hydrochloride.                                Tablet; Oral.          Pharmaceuticals,
                                                                                Corp.
NDA 018164................  ANAPROX.........................  Naproxen Sodium......  Equivalent to (EQ)     Tablet; Oral.........  ATNAHS Pharma U.S.,
                                                                                250 mg Base.                                  Ltd.
NDA 018405................  AYGESTIN........................  Norethindrone Acetate  5 mg.................  Tablet; Oral.........  Teva Branded
                                                                                Pharmaceutical
                                                                                Products R&D, Inc.
NDA 018452................  SEPTRA..........................  Sulfamethoxazole;      16 mg/milliliter       Injectable; Injection  Monarch
                                                               Trimethoprim.          (mL); 80 mg/mL.                               Pharmaceuticals,
                                                                                Inc.
NDA 018703................  ZANTAC 150......................  Ranitidine             EQ 150 mg Base.......  Tablet; Oral.........  GlaxoSmithKline.
                            ZANTAC 300......................   Hydrochloride.        EQ 300 mg Base.......  Tablet; Oral.........
                                                              Ranitidine
                                                               Hydrochloride.
NDA 019111................  TUSSIONEX PENNKINETIC...........  Chlorpheniramine       EQ 8 mg Chlorphenir-   Extended-Release       UCB, Inc.
                                                               Polistirex;            amine Maleate/5 mL;    Suspension; Oral.
                                                               Hydrocodone            EQ 10 mg Hydrocodone
                                                               Polistirex.            Bitartrate/5 mL.
NDA 019507................  KERLONE.........................  Betaxolol              10 mg; 20 mg.........  Tablets; Oral........  Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
                                                               Hydrochloride.                                                       LLC.
NDA 019537................  CIPRO...........................  Ciprofloxacin          EQ 100 mg Base; EQ     Tablet; Oral.........  Bayer Healthcare
                                                               Hydrochloride.         750 mg Base.                                  Pharmaceuticals,
                                                                                Inc.
NDA 019937................  ADENOCARD.......................  Adenosine............  3 mg/mL..............  Injectable; Injection  Astellas Pharma U.S.,
                                                                                Inc.
NDA 020415................  REMERON.........................  Mirtazapine..........  45 mg................  Tablet; Oral.........  Organon USA, Inc.
NDA 020528................  MAVIK...........................  Trandolapril.........  1 mg; 2 mg; 4 mg.....  Tablet; Oral.........  AbbVie, Inc.
NDA 020864................  MAXALT..........................  Rizatriptan Benzoate.  EQ 5 mg Base.........  Tablet; Oral.........  Merck Sharp & Dohme
                                                                                Corp.
NDA 020865................  MAXALT-MLT......................  Rizatriptan Benzoate.  EQ 5 mg Base.........  Orally Disintegrating  Do.
                                                                                Tablet; Oral.
NDA 020945................  NORVIR..........................  Ritonavir............  100 mg...............  Capsule; Oral........  AbbVie, Inc.
NDA 021131................  ZYVOX...........................  Linezolid............  400 mg/200 mL (2 mg/   Injectable; Injection  Pharmacia & Upjohn
                                                                                mL).                                          Co.

NDA 021381................  XYLOCAINE DENTAL WITH             Epinephrine;           0.01 mg/mL/2%; 0.02    Injectable; Injection  DENTSPLY
                             EPINEPHRINE.                      Lidocaine              mg/mL/2%.                                     Pharmaceutical, Inc.
                                                               Hydrochloride.
NDA 021511................  COPEGUS.........................  Ribavirin............  200 mg; 400 mg.......  Tablet; Oral.........  Hoffmann La-Roche,
                                                                                Inc.
NDA 022325................  NEXTERONE.......................  Amiodarone             50 mg/mL.............  Injectable; Injection  Baxter Healthcare,
                                                               Hydrochloride.                                                       Corp.
NDA 050605................  CEFTIN..........................  Cefuroxime Axetil....  EQ 125 mg Base; EQ     Tablet; Oral.........  GlaxoSmithKline.
                                                                                250 mg Base; EQ 500
                                                                                mg Base.
NDA 050730................  ZITHROMAX.......................  Azithromycin.........  EQ 600 mg Base.......  Tablet; Oral.........  Pfizer, Inc.
NDA 050746................  BACTROBAN.......................  Mupirocin Calcium....  EQ 2% Base...........  Cream; Topical.......  GlaxoSmithKline.
NDA 205103................  YOSPRALA........................  Aspirin; Omeprazole..  81 mg/40 mg; 325 mg/   Delayed-Release        Genus Lifesciences,
                                                                                40 mg.                 Tablet; Oral.          Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug products listed were not withdrawn from sale
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will
continue to list the drug products in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' identifies, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed are
unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to
those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may
also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and
regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug
products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will
advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: September 24, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-21201 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46371-46372]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

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:
    Rule 22e-3. SEC File No. 270-603, OMB Control No. 3235-0658.

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e)]
(``Act'') generally prohibits funds, including money market funds, from
suspending the right of redemption, and from postponing the payment or
satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than
seven days. The provision was designed to prevent funds and their
investment advisers from interfering with the

redemption rights of shareholders for improper purposes, such as the
preservation of management fees. Although section 22(e) permits funds
to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption for up
to seven days, it does not permit funds to suspend the right of
redemption for any amount of time, absent certain specified
circumstances or a Commission order.
    Rule 22e-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.22e-3] exempts money market
funds from section 22(e) to permit them to suspend redemptions in order
to facilitate an orderly liquidation of the fund. Specifically, rule
22e-3 permits a money market fund to suspend redemptions and postpone
the payment of proceeds pending board-approved liquidation proceedings
if: (i) The fund's board of directors, including a majority of
disinterested directors, determines pursuant to Sec.  270.2a-
7(c)(8)(ii)(C) that the extent of the deviation between the fund's
amortized cost price per share and its current net asset value per
share calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate
substitute that reflects current market conditions) may result in
material dilution or other unfair results to investors or existing
shareholders; (ii) the fund's board of directors, including a majority
of disinterested directors, irrevocably approves the liquidation of the
fund; and (iii) the fund, prior to suspending redemptions, notifies the
Commission of its decision to liquidate and suspend redemptions. Rule
22e-3 also provides an exemption from section 22(e) for registered
investment companies that own shares of a money market fund pursuant to
section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (``conduit funds''), if the underlying
money market fund has suspended redemptions pursuant to the rule. A
conduit fund that suspends redemptions in reliance on the exemption
provided by rule 22e-3 is required to provide prompt notice of the
suspension of redemptions to the Commission. Notices required by the
rule must be provided by electronic mail, directed to the attention of
the Director of the Division of Investment Management or the Director's
designee.\1\ Compliance with the notification requirement is mandatory
for money market funds and conduit funds that rely on rule 22e-3 to
suspend redemptions and postpone payment of proceeds pending a
liquidation, and are not kept confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See rule 22e-3(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates that, on average, one money market fund
would break the buck and liquidate every six years.\2\ In addition,
Commission staff estimates that there are an average of two conduit
funds that may be invested in a money market fund that breaks the
buck.\3\ Commission staff further estimates that a money market fund or
conduit fund would spend approximately one hour of an in-house
attorney's time to prepare and submit the notice required by the rule.
Given these estimates, the total annual burden of the notification
requirement of rule 22e-3 for all money market funds and conduit funds
would be approximately 30 minutes, \4\ at a cost of $190.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate is based upon the Commission's experience with
the frequency with which money market funds have historically
required sponsor support. Although the vast majority of money market
fund sponsors have supported their money market funds in times of
market distress, for purposes of this estimate Commission staff
conservatively estimates that one or more sponsors may not provide
support.
    \3\ Based on a review of filings with the Commission, Commission
staff estimates that 2.3 conduit funds are invested in each master
fund. However, master funds account for only 11.3% of all money
market funds. Solely for the purposes of this information
collection, and to avoid underestimating possible burdens, the
Commission conservatively assumes that any money market that breaks
the buck and liquidates would be a master fund.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
hour / 6 years) = 10 minutes per year for each fund and conduit fund
that is required to provide notice under the rule. 10 minutes per
year x 3 (combined number of affected funds and conduit funds) = 30
minutes.
    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: $380/
hour x 30 minutes = $190. The estimated hourly wages used in this
PRA analysis were derived from reports prepared by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, modified to account for
an 1800-hour work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. See Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. 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.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
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 after this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 28, 2015.
 Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18884 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

								:

REPORTS ON SIGNIFICANT AIRLINE		:

SERVICE REDUCTIONS					: 	Docket OST-01-10711

								:

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

NOTICE OF

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

AND EXPRESSJET, INC. D/B/A

CONTINENTAL EXPRESS

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Rebecca G. Cox

Vice President, Government Affairs

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

1350 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC  20005-3389

Hershel I. Kamen

Staff Vice President, International

  and Regulatory Affairs

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

P.O. Box 4607 – HQSGV

Houston, TX  77210-4607

James B. Ream

President

EXPRESSJET, INC.

P.O. Box 4607 – HQSCE

Houston, TX  77210-4607

	R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.

Lorraine B. Halloway

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20004-2595

(202) 624-2500

Counsel for

Continental Airlines, Inc.

and ExpressJet, Inc. d/b/a

Continental Express

October 3, 2001BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

								:

REPORTS ON SIGNIFICANT AIRLINE		:

SERVICE REDUCTIONS					: 	Docket OST-01-10711

								:

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

NOTICE OF

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

AND EXPRESSJET, INC. D/B/A

CONTINENTAL EXPRESS

Continental and Continental Express submit this notice of their terminations of all scheduled service at certain U.S. communities and terminations of the last nonstop service in certain domestic markets.  The information required by the Department’s Order 2001-9-20 is contained in Attachment A.

Continental and Continental Express suspended service September 11, 2001 as a result of the groundstop order issued by the Federal Aviation Administration because of the tragic terrorist events that day.  Both carriers restored service to the extent necessary to transport passengers still seeking air transportation to their

origins or destinations.  Thereafter, on September 17, September 29 and October 1 Continental and Continental Express terminated service at various cities and in various nonstop markets as shown in Attachment A.  Other suspensions will be effective November 1.  In each instance, at least one certificated carrier continues to serve the relevant community, and, after the departure of Continental and Continental Express, the essential air service determinations for each community continue to be met.  The only points at which only one certificated carrier remains are Abilene, San Angelo, Tyler and Waco, Texas.  Each of these points receives American Eagle service to and from its designated essential air service hub at Dallas/Ft. Worth meeting applicable essential air service requirements.

					Respectfully submitted,

						CROWELL & MORING LLP

						/s/ R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.

						______________________________________

						R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.

						  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> 						/s/ Lorraine B. Halloway

						______________________________________

						Lorraine B. Halloway

						  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Counsel for

				Continental Airlines, Inc.

				and ExpressJet, Inc. d/b/a

				Continental Express

October 3, 2001

1847015Continental and ExpressJet

Reports on Significant Airline Service Reductions

October 3, 2001

1) Termination of all scheduled service at a U.S. community:

U.S. Community	Daily Service Reduction	Company	Suspension Date

Brownsville, TX*	1 frequency	Continental	October 1

Daytona Beach, FL	1  frequency	Continental	September 17

Hartford, CT*	2 frequencies	Continental	September 17

Houston (Hobby), TX	3 frequencies	Continental	September 17

Melbourne, FL	1  frequency	Continental	September 17

New York (JFK), NY*	2 frequencies	Continental	September 17

U.S. Community	Daily Service Reduction	Company	Suspension Date

Abilene, TX	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	October 1

Atlantic City, NJ	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	September 17

Colorado Springs, CO*	1 frequency	ExpressJet	September 17

San Angelo, TX	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	September 29

Tyler, TX	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	October 1

Waco, TX	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	October 1

2) Termination of the last nonstop service in a domestic market:

U.S. Market	Service

Reduction	Company	Suspension Date

Houston (IAH) - Richmond	1  frequencies	Continental	September 17

U.S. Market	Service Reduction	Company	Suspension Date

Cleveland  - Greensboro	2  frequencies	ExpressJet	September 17

Cleveland  - Jacksonville	1  frequency	ExpressJet	September 17

Cleveland - Dallas/ Ft. Worth (DAL)***	2  frequencies	ExpressJet September 17

Houston (IAH) – Savannah	1  frequency	ExpressJet	October 1

New York (EWR) – Philadelphia**	3  frequencies	ExpressJet	October 1

New York (LGA) - Grand Rapids	2  frequencies	ExpressJet	September 17

New York (LGA) – Knoxville**	2  frequencies	ExpressJet	November 1

New York (LGA) – Lexington	2  frequencies	ExpressJet	November 1

New York (LGA) – Madison	2  frequencies	ExpressJet	September 17

White Plains – Boston	6 frequencies	ExpressJet	September 17

*     While service in these communities has been terminated by either Continental

       or ExpressJet, service by the other carrier remains.

**   Service remains at other New York airports.

*** Service remains at DFW.

 	Common names are used for airlines.

	Continental and Continental Express have not reduced service at a community in which the total available seats or flights linking that community with FAA-designated hubs has been reduced by 33 percent or more during a 90-day period.

	For this reason, no notification was required under § 323.3(a).

(…continued)

(continued…)

Answer of Continental

Page   PAGE  2

Notice of Continental and ExpressJet

Page   PAGE  2

Attachment A


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52630-52633]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21539]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0098; FRL-9931-78-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to
meet certain requirements under section 182(c) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) nonattainment area under the 1997
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard).
The revisions address the attainment demonstration submitted on January
17, 2012, by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for
the DFW Serious nonattainment area. The EPA has also determined that
the DFW nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.
Thus, the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
sanctions clock and the EPA's obligation to promulgate an attainment
demonstration Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the DFW area are
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0098. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April
28, 2015 Proposal (80 FR 23487). In that notice, we proposed to
disapprove the TCEQ's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the DFW
Serious nonattainment area because the area failed to attain the 1997
ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2013 attainment date.\1\ Our analysis and
findings are discussed in the proposed rulemaking. We also proposed to
determine that the DFW ozone nonattainment area is currently in
attainment of the 1997 ozone standard based on the most recent 3 years
of quality-assured air quality data. Certified ambient air monitoring
data show that the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period and continues to monitor
attainment of the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The DFW Serious ozone nonattainment area under the 1997
ozone standard is comprised of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our Proposal and the technical support document (TSD) that
accompanied the proposed rule provide our rationale for this
rulemaking. Please see the docket for these and other documents
regarding our Proposal. The public comment period for our Proposal
closed on May 28, 2015.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment letter dated May 28, 2015, from the TCEQ
(the Commenter) regarding our Proposal. A summary of the comments and
our responses follow.
    Comment: The Commenter agrees with our Proposal to determine that
the DFW ozone nonattainment area is

currently in attainment of the 1997 ozone standard based on the most
recent 3 years of quality-assured air quality data.
    Response: We concur with the Commenter.
    Comment: The Commenter does not support our Proposal to disapprove
the DFW Serious area attainment demonstration under the 1997 ozone
standard, given that the EPA's final rule to implement SIP requirements
under the 2008 ozone standard (the SIP requirements rule or SRR),\2\
among other things, revoked the 1997 ozone standard and relieved the
EPA of its obligation to issue a finding of failure to attain by the
attainment date or reclassification (i.e., ``bump up'') for such
standard. The Commenter also states that the disapproval is unnecessary
and may result in future obligations for the revoked standard and
expenditure of limited state and federal resources for no true air
quality benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The Commenter is correct that, as of April 6, 2015, the
1997 ozone standard is revoked, the EPA is no longer obligated to
determine pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) or section 179(c) whether
an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by that area's attainment date
for that NAAQS, and the EPA is also no longer obligated to reclassify
an area to a higher classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon
a determination that the area failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by
the area's attainment date for that NAAQS.\3\ However, this rulemaking
addresses the EPA's obligation to act on the attainment demonstration
SIP submittal. Pursuant to section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, we have a
mandatory duty to act on each SIP submittal before us and therefore, it
is necessary for us to take action on the DFW submittal.\4\ Regardless
of our revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, because we had yet to act
on the attainment demonstration submittal and the DFW area did not
attain the 1997 ozone standard by its June 15, 2013 attainment date,
EPA is required to disapprove the State's attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12264, at 12297; 40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2). On February
17, 2015, we proposed to determine that the DFW area did not attain
the 1997 ozone standard by the attainment date and to reclassify the
area to Severe (see 80 FR 8274). The SRR was published and effective
shortly thereafter and we have not finalized the proposal to
reclassify the DFW area to Severe.
    \4\ On October 17, 2014, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit to
compel the EPA to comply with the CAA's mandatory duty to act on
this SIP submittal. Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 14-CV-00833-
ESH (DC). The parties entered a consent decree on January 23, 2015,
that requires EPA to finalize action on this submittal by August 31,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Commenter's remark about future obligations that
may be brought on by this final disapproval, on February 27, 2015, the
TCEQ requested that we make a Clean Data Determination (CDD) for the
DFW area with regard to the 1997 ozone standard and we are finalizing
the CDD proposed on April 28, 2015 in this rulemaking.\5\ Finalizing
the CDD suspends the requirements for the TCEQ to submit an attainment
demonstration and other SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the DFW area for so long as the area is attaining the standard
(40 CFR 51.1118), and the 18-month sanctions clock associated with
EPA's disapproval as well as the EPA's obligation to promulgate an
attainment demonstration FIP within two years of disapproval are also
tolled for so long as this CDD remains in place. Thus, as long as the
area is able to maintain air quality meeting the 1997 ozone standard,
no obligations will accrue from this disapproval. In addition, the
State is currently working to develop the DFW attainment demonstration
for the more stringent 2008 ozone standard, and in doing so, the TCEQ
necessarily must also demonstrate attainment of the 1997 ozone
standard. The State may also submit a redesignation substitute request
and upon final approval by the EPA, the clocks to impose sanctions and
a FIP suspended by this CDD action would lift permanently.\6\ However,
in the event that the DFW area falls out of attainment of the 1997
ozone standard prior to obtaining EPA approval of a redesignation
substitute, even though the EPA has revoked that standard, the CAA
requires EPA to continue to ensure that the State's plan meets the
requirements of that standard for purposes of anti-backsliding,
including the obligations associated with a disapproved attainment
demonstration. CAA 110(l); see also, South Coast Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006); 78 FR 34178, 34211-
34225; 80 FR 12264, 12300. Further, the EPA does not agree that efforts
to address the 1997 standard would expend resources for no air quality
benefit; should air quality in the DFW area worsen to levels above the
1997 ozone standard prior to approval of a redesignation substitute,
the subsequent obligations and actions required by the statute to
reduce ozone levels in the DFW area would be beneficial to achieving
both the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The State's request is in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \6\ In the SRR, among other things, we revoked the 1997 ozone
standard and finalized a redesignation substitute procedure for a
revoked standard. See 80 FR 12264 and 40 CFR 51.1105(b). Under this
redesignation substitute procedure, the state must demonstrate that
the area has attained that revoked NAAQS due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions and that the area will maintain that
revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the EPA's approval of
this showing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the effect of this action?

    A disapproval of an attainment plan as being promulgated here would
normally start a FIP and sanctions clock. However, in accordance with
our Clean Data Policy as codified in 40 CFR 51.1118, a determination of
attainment suspends the requirements for the TCEQ to submit an
attainment demonstration and other SIPs related to attaining the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the DFW area for so long as the area continues to attain
the standard. In addition, the sanctions clock and the EPA's obligation
to promulgate an attainment demonstration FIP are tolled for so long as
this CDD remains in place. However, should the area violate the 1997
ozone standard after the CDD is finalized, the EPA would rescind the
CDD and the sanctions and FIP clocks would resume.
    Because the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard in the SRR also
revoked EPA's obligation to determine whether an area attained the 1997
ozone NAAQS by that area's attainment date and to reclassify an area to
a higher classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a
determination that the area failed to attain that NAAQS by the area's
attainment date,\7\ we do not intend to finalize our proposed finding
of failure to attain and reclassification at 80 FR 8274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 80 FR 12264, at 12297; 40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is disapproving certain elements of the attainment
demonstration SIP submitted by the TCEQ for the DFW Serious ozone
nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are
disapproving the attainment demonstration, the demonstration for
reasonably available control measures, and the attainment demonstration
motor vehicle emission budgets for 2012. The EPA is disapproving these
SIP revisions because the area failed to attain the standard by its
June 15, 2013 attainment date, and thus we have determined that the
plan was insufficient to demonstrate attainment by the attainment date.
    We also find that the DFW ozone nonattainment area has attained the
1997 ozone standard and continues to attain the standard. Thus, the
requirements for submitting the

attainment demonstration and other SIPs related to attainment of the
1997 ozone NAAQS are suspended for so long as the area is attaining the
standard, and the sanctions and obligations accruing from EPA's
disapproval of the attainment demonstration are also suspended during
that period.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 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 final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This final SIP
action under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it
affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA
prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements)
may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that the EPA
either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this
action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final 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, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this
final action does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

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

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

    This final 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, section 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. NTTAA directs the EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this final action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely disapproves
certain State requirements from inclusion into the SIP under section
110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide the EPA
with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898.
    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 action 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 21, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. Section 52.2273 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2273  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (i) The attainment demonstration for the Dallas/Fort Worth Serious
ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone standard submitted
January 17, 2012 is disapproved. The disapproval applies to the
attainment demonstration, the determination for reasonably available
control measures, and the attainment demonstration motor vehicle
emission budgets for 2012.

0
3. Section 52.2275 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2275  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (i) Determination of attainment. Effective October 1, 2015 the EPA
has determined that the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area has attained the 1997 ozone standard. Under the provisions of the
EPA's Clean Data Policy, this determination suspends the requirements
for this area to submit an attainment demonstration and other State
Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for
so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
[FR Doc. 2015-21539 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:	"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:	Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc:	RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Hoffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Frey, Nathan J." <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date:	03/20/2012 01:30 PM

Subject:	Interagency Comments on latest draft of NSPS EGU preamble

Hi Kevin,

Nathan is home sick today so I’m covering for him.

Attached are comments on the latest draft of the EGU NSPS preamble.  These are comments that, as discussed last week, would come over early this week.  Please note that while most of the suggested edits are in the section on transitional sources, there a few edits in other parts of the rule.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney

EO 12866 EGU GHG NSPS proposal FR notice 03_13_12 - InteragencycommentsunderEO13563_March20.docx