[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70271-70276]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28806]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76381; File No. SR-MSRB-2015-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to Rule G-20, on Gifts, Gratuities and Non-Cash
Compensation, and Rule G-8, on Books and Records To Be Made by Brokers,
Dealers, Municipal Securities Dealers, and Municipal Advisors, and the
Deletion of Prior Interpretive Guidance

November 6, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On September 2, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed amendments
to MSRB Rule G-20 on gifts, gratuities and non-cash compensation,
proposed amendments to MSRB Rule G-8, on books and records to be made
by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal
advisors, and the deletion of prior interpretive guidance that would be
codified by proposed amended Rule G-20 (the ``proposed rule change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 22, 2015.\3\ The Commission received three
comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ On

November 2, 2015, the MSRB submitted a response to these comments.\5\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75932 (September 16,
2015), 80 FR 57240 (September 22, 2015) (the ``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel,
Investment Company Institute (``ICI''), dated September 25, 2015
(``ICI Letter''); Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), dated October 13, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'');
and Terri Heaton, President, National Association of Municipal
Advisors (``NAMA''), dated October 16, 2015 (``NAMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Michael L. Post, General Counsel--Regulatory
Affairs, MSRB, dated November 2, 2015 (``MSRB Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Existing Rule G-20 is designed, in part, to minimize the conflicts
of interest that arise when a dealer attempts to induce organizations
active in the municipal securities market to engage in business with
such dealers by means of personal gifts or gratuities given to
employees of such organizations.\6\ According to the MSRB, the proposed
rule change addresses improprieties and conflicts that may arise when
municipal advisors and/or their associated persons \7\ give gifts or
gratuities to employees who may influence the award of municipal
advisory business.\8\ In summary, the MSRB has proposed amendments to
Rule G-20 that would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See MSRB Notice 2004-17 (June 15, 2004).
    \7\ MSRB Rule D-11 defines ``associated persons'' as follows:
Unless the context otherwise requires or a rule of the Board
otherwise specifically provides, the terms ``broker,'' ``dealer,''
``municipal securities broker,'' ``municipal securities dealer,''
``bank dealer,'' and ``municipal advisor'' shall refer to and
include their respective associated persons. Unless otherwise
specified, persons whose functions are solely clerical or
ministerial shall not be considered associated persons for purposes
of the Board's rules.
    \8\ See supra note 3 at 57240-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Extend the relevant existing provisions of Rule G-20 to
municipal advisors and their associated persons and to gifts given in
relation to municipal advisory activities;
     Consolidate and codify interpretive guidance, including
interpretive guidance published by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') and adopted by the MSRB and delete prior
interpretive guidance that would be codified by proposed amended Rule
G-20;
     Add a new provision prohibiting a regulated entity from
seeking or obtaining reimbursement of certain entertainment expenses
from the proceeds of an offering of municipal securities; and
     Make several revisions that are designed to assist
brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') and
municipal advisors (dealers, together with municipal advisors,
``regulated entities'') and their associated persons with their
understanding of and compliance with Rule G-20.
    In summary, the MSRB has proposed amendments to Rule G-8 that
would:
     Extend to municipal advisors the recordkeeping
requirements related to Rule G-20 that currently apply to dealers; and
     Amend the rule language contained in Rule G-8(a)(xvii)(A),
(B), and (C) applicable to dealers to reflect the revisions to proposed
amended Rule G-20.

Extension of Rule G-20 to Municipal Advisors and Municipal Advisory
Activities

    The MSRB has proposed to extend to municipal advisors and their
associated persons: (i) The general dealer prohibition of gifts or
gratuities in excess of $100 per person per year in relation to the
municipal securities activities of the recipient's employer (the ``$100
limit''); (ii) the exclusions contained in the existing rule from that
general prohibition (including certain consolidations and the
codifications of prior interpretive guidance) and the addition of
bereavement gifts to those exclusions; and (iii) the existing exclusion
relating to contracts of employment or compensation for services.
Proposed section (g) of Rule G-20, on non-cash compensation in
connection with primary offerings, is not being extended to municipal
advisors or to associated persons thereof.
(i) General Prohibition of Gifts or Gratuities in Excess of $100 per
Year
    The MSRB has proposed section (c) of Rule G-20 which extends to a
municipal advisor and its associated persons the provision that
currently prohibits a dealer and its associated persons, in certain
circumstances, from giving directly or indirectly any thing or service
of value, including gratuities (``gifts''), in excess of $100 per year
to a person (other than an employee of the dealer). The prohibited
payments or services by a regulated entity or associated persons would
be those provided in relation to the municipal securities activities or
municipal advisory activities of the employer of the recipient (other
than an employee of the regulated entity).
(ii) Exclusions From the $100 Limit
    The MSRB has proposed section (d) of Rule G-20 which extends to a
municipal advisor and its associated persons the provision that
excludes certain gifts from the $100 limit of proposed section (c) as
long as the conditions articulated by proposed section (d) and the
relevant subsection, as applicable, are met. Section (d) states that
gifts, in order to be excluded from the $100 limit, must not give rise
to any apparent or actual material conflict of interest.
    Proposed section (d) of Rule G-20 includes subsections (d)(i)
through (d)(iv) and (d)(vi) which consolidate and codify interpretive
guidance that the MSRB provided in MSRB Notice 2007-06 (the ``2007 MSRB
Gifts Notice'').\9\ The 2007 MSRB Gifts Notice's interpretive guidance
also included FINRA guidance that the MSRB had adopted by
reference.\10\ Further, proposed subsection (d)(v) would codify FINRA
interpretive guidance relating to bereavement gifts that the MSRB
previously had not adopted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Dealer Payments in Connection with the Municipal
Issuance Process, MSRB Notice 2007-06 (Jan. 29, 2007).
    \10\ See 2007 MSRB Gifts Notice (reminding dealers of the
application of Rule G-20 and Rule G-17 in connection with certain
payments made and expenses reimbursed during the municipal bond
issuance process, and stating that the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc.'s (``NASD'') guidance provided in NASD
Notice to Members 06-69 (Dec. 2006) to assist dealers in complying
with NASD Rule 3060 applies as well to comparable provisions of Rule
G-20).
    \11\ See supra note 3 at 57242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has proposed subsection (d)(i) of Rule G-20 which extends
to a municipal advisor and its associated persons the current exclusion
of a gift of meals or tickets to theatrical, sporting, and other
entertainment given by a dealer or its associated persons from the $100
limit if they are a ``normal business dealing.'' Such exclusion is
subject to the limitations as described in proposed subsection (d)(i).
    Proposed subsections (d)(ii) through (iv) establish three
categories of gifts that were previously excluded from the $100 limit
under the category of ``reminder advertising'' in the rule language
regarding ``normal business dealings'' in existing section (b) of Rule
G-20. The MSRB has proposed to delete the concept of ``reminder
advertising'' from the ``normal business dealings'' exclusion under
current paragraph (b). This amendment would clarify the types of gifts
in the nature of reminder advertising that would be excluded from the
$100 limit. These changes conform draft amended paragraph (d) with
current FINRA interpretive guidance that the MSRB has stated applies to
Rule G-20.\12\ These three categories are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 57241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Gifts commemorative of a business transaction, such as a
desk ornament or

Lucite tombstone (proposed subsection (d)(ii));
     de minimis gifts, such as pens and notepads (proposed
subsection (d)(iii)); and
     promotional gifts of nominal value that bear an entity's
corporate or other business logo and that are substantially below the
$100 limit (proposed subsection (d)(iv)).
    Proposed subsection (d)(v) of Rule G-20 excludes bereavement gifts
which are reasonable and customary for the circumstances from the $100
limit. According to the MSRB, proposed subsection (d)(v) of Rule G-20
codifies FINRA interpretive guidance currently applicable to dealers
relating to bereavement gifts that the MSRB previously had not
adopted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 57242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the MSRB has proposed subsection (d)(vi) of Rule G-20
which excludes personal gifts given upon the occurrence of infrequent
life events, such as a wedding gift or a congratulatory gift for the
birth of a child. According to the MSRB, this proposed subsection
consolidates and codifies the FINRA personal gift guidance currently
applicable to dealers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``frequency'' and ``extensiveness'' limitations applicable to
proposed subsection (d)(i) of Rule G-20 would not apply to proposed
subsections (d)(ii) through (vi). The MSRB has proposed to modify those
limitations to better reflect the characteristics of the gifts
described in proposed subsections (d)(ii) through (vi).\15\ According
to the MSRB, gifts described in those subsections in the proposed rule
change are by their nature given infrequently and/or are of such
nominal value that retaining the requirement that such gifts be ``not
so frequent or extensive'' would be unnecessarily duplicative of the
description of these gifts and could result in confusion.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist regulated entities with their understanding of the
exclusions described and with their compliance with the rule, the MSRB
has provided guidance in the Supplementary Material. Paragraph .03 of
the Supplementary Material provides guidance regarding promotional
gifts and ``other business logos'' including what would constitute an
``other business logo.'' Paragraph .04 of the Supplementary Material
provides guidance regarding personal gifts including factors that
should be considered when determining whether a gift is given in
connection with the municipal securities or municipal advisory services
of the employer of the recipient.
(iii) Exclusion for Compensation Paid as a Result of Contracts of
Employment or Compensation for Services
    The MSRB has proposed section (f) which extends to municipal
advisors the exclusion from the $100 limit in existing Rule G-20(c) for
contracts of employment with or compensation for services that are
rendered pursuant to a prior written agreement meeting certain content
requirements. The MSRB has stated that proposed section (f) would
clarify that the exclusion applies only to the compensation paid as a
result of certain employment contracts, and does not apply to the
existence or creation of employment contracts. The MSRB further stated
that proposed section (f) is only a clarification and would not alter
the requirements currently applicable to dealers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Consolidation and Codification of MSRB and FINRA Interpretive Guidance

    As discussed, the MSRB has proposed to consolidate and codify
existing FINRA interpretive guidance previously adopted by the MSRB and
incorporate additional relevant FINRA interpretive guidance that has
not previously been adopted by the MSRB in both Rule G-20 text and the
Supplementary Material. While FINRA's interpretive guidance regarding
bereavement gifts was not formerly adopted by the MSRB, the MSRB
believes that this guidance will be appropriate for regulated entities
as it is consistent with the purpose and scope of proposed amended Rule
G-20. Further, the MSRB stated its belief that the consolidation and
codification of the applicable interpretive guidance will promote
compliance with the rule and create efficiencies for regulated entities
and regulatory enforcement agencies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the interpretive guidance discussed above, proposed
paragraphs .01, .02, and .05 of the Supplementary Material would
provide guidance relating to the valuation and the aggregation of gifts
and to the applicability of state laws. Proposed paragraph .01 of the
Supplementary Material would state that a gift's value should be
determined generally according to the higher of its cost or market
value. Proposed paragraph .02 of the Supplementary Material would state
that regulated entities must aggregate all gifts that are subject to
the $100 limit given by the regulated entity and each associated person
of the regulated entity to a particular recipient over the course of a
year however ``year'' is selected to be defined by the regulated
entity. Proposed paragraphs .01 and .02 reflect existing FINRA
interpretive guidance regarding the aggregation of gifts for purposes
of its gift rules, which the MSRB has previously adopted.
    Proposed paragraph .05 of the Supplementary Material would remind
regulated entities that, in addition to all the requirements of
proposed amended Rule G-20, regulated entities may also be subject to
other duties, restrictions, or obligations under state or other laws
and that proposed amended Rule G-20 would not supersede any more
restrictive provisions of state or other laws applicable to regulated
entities or their associated persons.

Prohibition of Reimbursement for Entertainment Expenses

    The MSRB has also proposed section (e) of Rule G-20 which provides
that a regulated entity is prohibited from requesting or obtaining
reimbursement for certain entertainment expenses from the proceeds of a
municipal securities offering. The MSRB stated its belief that this
provision would address a matter highlighted by a recent FINRA
enforcement action. Proposed section (e) provides that an entertainment
expense excludes ``ordinary and reasonable expenses for meals hosted by
the regulated entity and directly related to the offering for which the
regulated entity was retained.'' The MSRB has stated that proposed
section (e) is intended to allow the continuation of the generally
accepted market practice of a regulated entity advancing normal travel
costs to personnel of a municipal entity or obligated person for
business travel related to a municipal securities issuance and
obtaining reimbursement for such costs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Proposed Amendments to Rule G-20

    In addition to the previously discussed proposed amendments to Rule
G-20, the MSRB proposed several amendments which it believes will
assist readers with their understanding of and compliance with Rule G-
20.\20\ These proposed amendments include (i) a revised rule title,
(ii) a new provision stating the rule's purpose, and (iii) a re-
ordering of existing provisions and additional defined terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.

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

Recordkeeping Requirements

    The MSRB has proposed amendments to Rule G-8 which extend to
municipal advisors the recordkeeping requirements related to Rule G-20
that currently apply to dealers. Municipal advisor recordkeeping
requirements would be identical to the recordkeeping requirements to
which dealers would be subject in proposed amended Rule G-8(a)(xvii)(A)
and (B).
    The MSRB has proposed to amend the language contained in Rule G-
8(a)(xvii)(A), (B), and (C) applicable to dealers, to reflect the
revisions to proposed amended Rule G-20. Proposed amended paragraph
(a)(xvii)(A) provides that a separate record of any gift or gratuity
subject to the general limitation of proposed amended Rule G-20(c) must
be made and kept by dealers (emphasis added to amended rule text).
Paragraph (a)(xvii)(B) would be amended to clarify that dealers must
make and keep records of all agreements referred to in proposed amended
Rule G-20(f) and records of all compensation paid as a result of those
agreements (emphasis added to proposed amended rule text). The proposed
amendments would also track the reordering of sections in proposed
amended Rule G-20 and provide greater specificity as to the records
that a dealer must maintain by referencing the terms used in proposed
amended Rule G-20.
    The proposed rule change would extend the provisions of existing
Rule G-8 to require that municipal advisors as well as dealers make and
keep records of: gifts given that are subject to the $100 limit; and
all agreements referred to in proposed section (f) (on compensation for
services) and records of compensation paid as a result of those
agreements.

Implementation Date

    The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change be approved with
an implementation date six months after the Commission approval date
for all changes.

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    As noted previously, the Commission received three comment letters
on the proposed rule change.\21\ The commenters generally support the
proposed rule change.\22\ However, some commenters asked for further
clarification and provided suggestions to the proposed rule change.\23\
In response to an earlier request for comment by the MSRB on the draft
amendments to Rules G-20 and G-8,\24\ the MSRB received eight comment
letters and responded to the comments in the Notice. In the MSRB
Response Letter, the MSRB incorporated by reference its response to
comments made in the Notice noting that the three comments received on
the proposed rule change were the same or substantially similar to the
comments made in response to the MSRB Request for Comment.\25\ The MSRB
believes the proposed rule change is appropriately tailored and
responded to the commenters as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 4.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Request for Comment on Draft Amendments to MSRB Rule G-20,
on Gifts, Gratuities and Non-Cash Compensation, to Extend its
Provisions to Municipal Advisors, MSRB Notice 2014-18 (Oct. 23,
2014) (``MSRB Request for Comment'').
    \25\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Application of Proposed Amended Rule G-20(c) to Certain Recipients

    NAMA commented that under the MSRB's proposed Rule G-20, the $100
limit would seem not to apply to gifts given to employees or officials
of municipal entities or obligated persons because such persons, for
the most part, do not engage in ``municipal advisory activities.'' \26\
NAMA noted that the MSRB indicated in the Notice that prior
interpretive guidance made clear issuer personnel are considered to
engage in ``municipal securities activities'' and requested that the
MSRB codify this guidance in Rule G-20.\27\ The MSRB responded to NAMA
stating that the language of both existing Rule G-20 and proposed
amended Rule G-20 applies to gifts given in relation to this broad term
``municipal securities activities.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See NAMA Letter.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See supra notes 5 and 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAMA also commented that many municipal official and governing
board members are not employees of municipal entities or obligated
persons, and therefore it appears that G-20 does not apply to gifts
given to non-employee officials of municipal entities and obligated
persons.\29\ The MSRB responded by stating that it believes for
purposes of existing and proposed amended Rule G-20, elected and
appointed officials are considered employees of the governmental entity
on behalf of which they act as agent or representative.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See NAMA Letter.
    \30\ See supra notes 5 and 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changing the Amount of the $100 Limit

    In its comments, NAMA proposed that the $100 limit be raised to
$250 per person per year which would aid in limiting conflicts of
interest and also align Rule G-20 with MSRB Rule G-37.\31\ NAMA stated
that in Rule G-37 the MSRB determined that the contribution level of
$250 was sufficient to address the needs of individuals seeking to give
political contributions while not allowing those contributions to be so
excessive as to allow the contributor to gain undue influence.\32\ NAMA
proposed that supplementary material be added to state, in effect, that
occasional gifts of meals or tickets to theatrical, sporting, and other
entertainments that are hosted by the regulated entity would be
presumed to be so extensive as to raise a question of propriety if they
exceed $250 in any year in conjunction with any gifts provided under
Rule G-20(c).\33\ NAMA asserted that because the purposes of Rule G-20
and Rule G-37 both are meant to limit a dealer's or a municipal
advisor's ability to gain undue influence through the giving of gifts
or contributions that the rules should be written similarly.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See NAMA Letter.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded to NAMA by stating that Rule G-37 is designed to
address potential political corruption that may result from pay-to-play
practices,\35\ and as such, is tailored in light of First Amendment
concerns. Existing Rule G-20 is designed to address commercial bribery
by minimizing the conflicts of interest that arise when a dealer
attempts to induce organizations active in the municipal securities
market to engage in business with such dealer by means of gifts or
gratuities given to employees of such organizations.\36\ The MSRB
stated that Rules G-37 and G-20 address substantially different
regulatory needs in different legal contexts, and therefore the dollar
amounts are likewise justifiably different.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra notes 5 and 24.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ``Normal Business Dealings''

    NAMA commented that proposed amended Rule G-20(d), which sets forth
the exclusions from the $100 limit, leaves open opportunities for
abuse.\38\ NAMA expressed specific concern regarding proposed
subsection (d)(i), which would, under certain circumstances, exclude
from the $100 limit the giving of occasional meals or tickets to
theatrical, sporting or

entertainment events.\39\ In NAMA's view, regulated entities would be
able to engage in otherwise impermissible gift giving under the guise
of ``normal business dealings,'' and such gift giving likely would
result in the improper influence that Rule G-20 was designed to
curtail.\40\ NAMA suggested modifying the amended rule to impose an
aggregate limit of $250 on all gifts given as part of ``normal business
dealings'' and gifts and gratuities given under proposed subsection (c)
believing the aggregate limit would be consistent with the dollar
threshold used in MSRB Rule G-37.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See NAMA Letter.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded that in order to curtail any abuse of the
exception to the $100 limit, proposed amended Rule G-20 places
conditions on the excluded gifts, including those that fall under
``normal business dealings.'' \42\ All of the gifts described in
proposed section (d) would be excluded only if they do not ``give rise
to any apparent or actual material conflict of interest,'' and, under
proposed section (d)(i), ``normal business dealing'' gifts would be
excluded only if they are not ``so frequent or so extensive as to raise
any question of propriety.'' \43\ The MSRB further stated that dealers
and municipal advisors are subject to the fundamental fair-dealing
obligations of MSRB Rule G-17.\44\ The MSRB stated that Rule G-17
likely addresses at least some of the concerns raised by NAMA by
prohibiting regulated entities from characterizing excessive or lavish
expenses for the personal benefit of issuer personnel as an expense of
the issue, as such behavior could possibly constitute a deceptive,
dishonest or unfair practice.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra notes 5 and 24.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Incorporation of Applicable FINRA Interpretive Guidance

    ICI commented that the MSRB should incorporate the relevant
portions of certain NASD guidance regarding the value of promotional
items into Rule G-20.\46\ ICI also encouraged the MSRB to do so in
order to ease the compliance burden on regulated entities as well as
make clear that the monetary limits in Rule G-20 do not apply to
``customary Lucite tombstones, plaques or other similar solely
decorative items commemorating a business transaction, even when such
items have a cost of more than $100.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See ICI Letter.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to ICI, the MSRB stated that such interpretive guidance
published by NASD has been incorporated into proposed amended Rule G-
20.\48\ The MSRB also stated that proposed Rule G-20(d)(ii) provides
that the general $100 limitation does not apply to ``[g]ifts that are
solely decorative items commemorating a business transaction, such as a
customary plaque or desk ornament (e.g., Lucite tombstone).'' \49\ The
MSRB noted that this description does not contain a monetary limit, and
therefore the provision fully addresses ICI's comment.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See supra note 5.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Recordkeeping Requirements

    NAMA commented that a regulated entity should be required to
maintain records for gifts that are subject to either the normal
business dealing exclusion under proposed amended Rule G-20(c) or Rule
G-20(d)(i).\51\ NAMA noted that gifts that constitute normal business
dealings under proposed amended Rule G-20(d)(i) require recordkeeping
to comply with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Service and
of various municipalities.\52\ Therefore, according to NAMA, imposing a
recordkeeping requirement would not be an entirely new burden, would
provide protection against pay-to-play activities and would provide a
means to determine whether such gifts give rise to questions of
impropriety or conflicts of interest.\53\ NAMA also commented that to
allow for meaningful enforcement the MSRB should require a regulated
entity to keep records of any personal gifts given pursuant to proposed
amended Rule G-20(d)(iv) that were paid for, directly or indirectly, by
the regulated entity.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See NAMA Letter.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded to NAMA stating that it believes that the
recordkeeping requirements of Rule G-8(h) that relate to Rule G-20
should be limited to items that are subject to the $100 limit so as to
continue to align recordkeeping under Rule G-20 with existing FINRA
recordkeeping requirements for dealers.\55\ The MSRB further stated
that significant safeguards are already in place, including Rules G-27,
G-44, and G-17, which weigh against imposing the additional
recordkeeping burdens on regulated entities.\56\ The MSRB further noted
that it reminded dealers in its 2007 MSRB Gifts Notice on Rule G-20
that they must have supervisory policies and procedures in place under
Rule G-27 that are reasonably designed to prevent and detect violations
of Rule G-20 (and of other applicable securities laws).\57\ The MSRB
also stated that recently adopted Rule G-44, on supervision and
compliance obligations of municipal advisors, imposes similar
supervisory requirements on municipal advisors.\58\ Finally, the MSRB
notes that they reminded dealers in 2007 in particular contexts that
the making of payments that might not otherwise be subject to Rule G-20
could constitute separate violations of Rule G-17, which currently
applies to municipal advisors and dealers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See supra notes 5 and 24.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA commented that it objects to the requirement that brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers keep records related to Rule
G-20 for a period of six years because municipal advisors only need to
retain them for five years.\60\ The MSRB responded to SIFMA stating
that this topic is addressed in MSRB Rule G-9 which was not included as
part of the proposed rule change and therefore no revision to the
proposed rule change is necessary.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \61\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB. In particular, the proposed rule
change is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the
Act. Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act provides that the MSRB shall propose
and adopt rules to effect the purposes of that title with respect to
transactions in municipal securities effected by brokers, dealers, and
municipal securities dealers and advice provided to or on behalf of
municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers, dealers, municipal
securities dealers, and municipal advisors with respect to municipal
financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, and
solicitations of municipal entity or obligated persons undertaken by
brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal
advisors.\62\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that the MSRB's
rules shall 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 municipal securities and municipal financial products, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities and municipal financial products, and, in general,
to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would help prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade and protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons,
and the public interest by reducing, or at least exposing, the
potential for conflicts of interests in municipal advisory activities
by extending the policies embodied in existing Rule G-20 to municipal
advisors and their associated persons and establishing a common
standard for all regulated entities that operate in the municipal
securities market. The proposed rule change would help ensure that
engagements of municipal advisors, as well as engagements of dealers,
are awarded on the basis of merit and not as a result of gifts made to
employees controlling the award of such business. In addition, by
prohibiting the reimbursement of entertainment expenses from the
proceeds of a municipal securities issuance, the proposed rule change
will provide regulated entities with clear notice and guidance
regarding MSRB regulation of such matters. Further, codifying certain
applicable MSRB interpretive guidance and adopting and codifying
certain FINRA interpretive guidance will increase awareness of such
guidance by regulated entities and in turn improve compliance and help
prevent inadvertent violations of Rule G-20.
    In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule G-8 will assist in the
enforcement of Rule G-20 by extending the relevant existing
recordkeeping requirements of Rule G-8 that currently are applicable to
dealers to municipal advisors. Regulated entities will be required to
create and maintain records in a consistent manner which the Commission
believes will allow organizations that examine regulated entities to
more precisely monitor and promote compliance with the proposed rule
change. Increased compliance with the proposed rule change would likely
reduce the frequency and magnitude of conflicts of interests that could
potentially result in harm to investors, municipal entities, or
obligated persons, or undermine the public's confidence in the
municipal securities market.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, in that it does not impose a
regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
municipal entities, and obligated persons, provided that there is
robust protection of investors against fraud.\64\ While the proposed
rule change would affect all municipal advisors, including small
municipal advisors, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is
a necessary and appropriate regulatory burden in order to limit
practices that could harm investors, municipal entities and obligated
persons. The proposed rule change will likely reduce the frequency and
severity of violations of the public trust by elected officials and
others involved in the issuance of municipal securities that might
otherwise have their decisions regarding the award of municipal
advisory business influenced by the gifts given by regulated entities
and their associated persons. Further, codifying certain interpretive
guidance will help minimize compliance costs which will benefit all
regulated entities, including small municipal advisors. While the
proposed rule change would burden some small municipal advisors, the
Commission believes that such burden is outweighed by the need to
maintain the integrity of the municipal securities market and to
preserve investor and public confidence in the municipal securities
market, including the bond issuance process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act which provides that the
MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to be made and kept by municipal
securities brokers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal
advisors and the periods for which such records shall be preserved.\65\
The proposed rule change would extend the provisions of existing Rule
G-8 to require that municipal advisors as well as dealers make and keep
records related to Rule G-20 as amended by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation.\66\ The Commission believes the proposed rule change
will help promote competition. By extending the relevant current
restrictions embodied in existing MSRB Rule G-20 to municipal advisors
and their municipal advisory activities, the proposed rule change will
promote merit-based and price-based competition for municipal advisory
services and limit the selection or retention of a municipal advisor
based on the receipt of gifts. A market where regulated entities
compete on the basis of price and quality of services is more likely to
provide a level playing field for existing regulated entities within
which to operate and also encourages the entry of new providers. By
extending the policies embodied in existing MSRB Rule G-20 to municipal
advisors and their municipal advisory activities, the proposed rule
change will also establish common standards for dealers and municipal
advisors that operate in the same municipal securities market. The
Commission also believes that by codifying certain interpretive
guidance, the proposed rule change will clarify the obligations of
dealers and municipal advisors and ease compliance burdens. The
Commission believes that the effect of the proposed rule is beneficial
and the proposed changes will help maintain the integrity of the
municipal securities market and preserve investor and public
confidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received three comment letters on
the filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB through its responses
has addressed commenters concerns. For the reasons noted above,
including those discussed in the MSRB Response Letter, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\67\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2015-09) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28806 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78066-78068]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65922; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule Relating to Manual Orders

December 9, 2011.
    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 December 1, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') with respect to manual orders. The Exchange proposes
to make the rule change operative on December 1, 2011. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 Fee Schedule with respect to
manual orders.
    Electronic orders and quotes resting on the Consolidated Book
currently have priority over equal-priced bids or offers in the Trading
Crowd.\3\ In this regard, a Floor Broker, after negotiating a price
with the Trading Crowd, may be required to trade against resting
interest on the Consolidated Book (``clear the Book'') before trading
against interest in the Trading Crowd. Currently, if a Floor Broker
clears the Book before trading against interest in the Trading Crowd,
the Exchange charges the portion of the order executed against the
Consolidated Book an electronic transaction fee and charges any
remaining order size that trades against interest in the Trading Crowd
a manual transaction fee.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.75(a) and (b).
    \4\ For example, a Broker-Dealer manual order is currently
charged a standard execution fee of $0.25 per contract. However, if
a portion of the Broker-Dealer manual order executes against resting
interest on the Consolidated Book, then that portion of the manual
order is instead charged the $0.50 per-contract rate for a Broker-
Dealer electronic order. Similarly, if the Broker-Dealer manual
order is in a Penny Pilot class and executes against resting
interest on the Consolidated Book, then that portion of the manual
order is considered to ``Take Liquidity'' and is instead charged the
$0.45 per-contract rate for a Broker-Dealer electronic order. The
Exchange notes that, at the time of the adoption of Post-Take
pricing for electronic executions in Penny Pilot classes, the
Exchange determined that any execution in Penny Pilot issues against
resting orders in the Consolidated Book would be charged a ``take
liquidity'' fee. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55223
(February 1, 2007), 72 FR 6306 (February 9, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-
07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend endnote 5 of the Fee Schedule to
reflect that a manual order that executes in part against an electronic
order or quote resting on the Consolidated Book prior to executing
against interest in the Trading Crowd would be assessed the applicable
manual transaction fee for the entire order. As is the case today, the
contra-side electronic order or quote would be assessed the applicable
electronic transaction fee or credit. However, if a manual order
executes completely against an electronic order or quote, and therefore
does not execute against interest in the Trading Crowd, then both sides
of the transaction would continue to be charged only the applicable
electronic transaction fee. In order to be eligible for the manual
transaction fee, all manual orders must be entered into the Exchange's
Electronic Order Capture System.
    The Exchange proposes to make the rule change operative on December
1, 2011.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\5\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, because it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. In addition, the
proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Under the proposed
change a manual order that executes partially against an electronic
order or quote resting on the Consolidated Book prior to executing
against interest in the Trading Crowd would be assessed the applicable
manual transaction fee for the entire order. The Exchange believes that
this is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because
a customer who sends an order to the Floor for execution has no control
over whether a portion of the manual order will execute against the
Consolidated Book and therefore has significant uncertainty about the
transaction fees applicable to such order, whereas a customer that
submits an electronic order has certainty that only electronic
transaction fees will apply. The Exchange also believes it is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge the
electronic transaction fee for manual orders that are executed entirely
against one or more electronic orders or quotes resting on the
Consolidated Book. Manual transaction fees are lower than electronic
transaction fees and the proposed rule change will reduce the incentive
for customers to submit manual orders to obtain the lower fee even
though there is sufficient liquidity in the Consolidated Book to fill
the order. When both sides of the order execute fully on the
Consolidated Book, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge both sides of the trade the same
category of transaction fee. The Exchange expects that by providing
more certainty about the applicable transaction fees, customers will be
encouraged to submit manual orders to the Exchange and that the
additional order flow will benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE Arca. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-91 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-91. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-91 and should
be submitted on or before January 5, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32138 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 52995-52996]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 19, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application

by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of
a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final
order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0222.
    Date Filed: September 14, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: October 5, 2009.
    Description: Application of Olympic Air Anonymos Etaireia
Aeroporikon Metaforon d/b/a Olympic Air requesting a foreign air
carrier permit and corresponding exemption authority to the full extent
authorization by the Air Transport Agreement between the United States
and the European Community and the Member States of the European
Community to enable it to engage in: (i) Foreign scheduled and charter
air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or
points behind any Member State of the European Union via any point or
points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or
points in the United States or beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and
charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any
point or points in the United States and any point or points in any
member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) other charters
pursuant to prior approval requirements; and (iv) transportation
authorized by any additional route rights made available to European
Community carriers in the future.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0224.
    Date Filed: September 15, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: September 30, 2009.
    Description: Application of Calm Air International LP d/b/a (``Calm
Air''), a Canadian air carrier, requesting an amendment to its air
carrier permit to engage in non-scheduled charter trips in foreign air
transportation between Canada and the United States as more
specifically set forth herein.

 Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-24783 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 81534]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2884-002.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company, KCP&L Greater
Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Protocols Compliance Filing to be
effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20151223-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-631-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: BPA Construction Agmt
(USBR Green Springs Rev 1) to be effective 2/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20151223-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-632-000.
    Applicants: Blythe Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Blythe Solar II, LLC
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20151223-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-633-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-12-23 ABAOA with
CENACE-GCRBC, Termination of CFE ICAOA & Waiver Request to be effective
1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/23/15.
    Accession Number: 20151223-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 23, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32828 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57165]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4615-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4615-DR), dated September 5, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 22, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 5, 2021.

    Rockland County for Individual Assistance.
    Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Rockland Counties for Public
Assistance.
    Ulster County for emergency protective measures (Category B),
limited to direct Federal assistance and reimbursement for mass care
including evacuation and shelter support.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22427 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48314-48315]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0708]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Grassy Sound Channel, Middle
Township, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge (Ocean
Drive) across Grassy Sound, mile 1.0, at Middle Township, NJ. The
deviation is necessary to accommodate the ``Tri the Wildwoods Triathlon
and 5k'' event. This temporary deviation allows the bridge draw span to
remain in the closed to navigation position for 4 hours during the
event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. until 10 a.m. on August
17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0708] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.''

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6557, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
reviewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cape May County Department of Public Works,
owner of the drawbridge, has requested on behalf of DelMosports, Inc. a
temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate
the ``Tri the Wildwoods Triathlon and 5K'' event.
    The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.721. On the day of the event, the normal regular operating schedule
for May 15 through September 30, the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge (Ocean
Drive), at mile 1.0, at Middle Township, NJ is open on signal from 6
a.m. to 8 p.m. with a two hours advance notice at all other times. The
Grassy Sound Channel Bridge (Ocean Drive) across the Grassy Sound has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 15 feet above mean high
water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be allowed to
remain in the closed to navigation position from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
Saturday, August 17, 2013 to accommodate ``Tri the Wildwoods Triathlon
and 5K'' event. The bridge will operate under its normal operating
schedule at all other times. Log books indicate there has only been one
opening request for this yearly event in 8 years and waterway users are
accustom to the temporary closure.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will
be able to open for emergencies. The New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
is an alternate route for vessels transiting this area and vessels may
pass before and after the closure. The Coast Guard will also inform
additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to
Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can
arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 30, 2013.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-19212 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5938-5941]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01922]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037; FRL-9921-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS45

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources Wastewater
Limit Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area
Sources. This direct final rule withdraws the total non-vinyl chloride
organic hazardous air pollutant (TOHAP) process wastewater emission
standards for new and existing polyvinyl chloride and copolymers (PVC)
area sources.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 30, 2015 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by March 13, 2015. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the amendments in the final
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0037.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0037, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0037. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0037. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,

and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0246; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA issuing a direct final rule?
II. Does this direct final rule apply to me?
III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
IV. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. Why is the EPA issuing a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposed rule to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers
Production Area Sources Wastewater Limit Withdrawal, if adverse
comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that some or
all of this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address
all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule.

II. Does this direct final rule apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this direct final
rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         NAICS    Examples of  regulated
               Category                code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyvinyl chloride resins                325211  Facilities that
 manufacturing.                                   polymerize vinyl
                                                  chloride monomer to
                                                  produce polyvinyl
                                                  chloride and/or
                                                  copolymers products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
direct final rule. To determine whether your facility would be
regulated by this direct final rule, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11140. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA
regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-
02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, and Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0037.

IV. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?

    This direct final rule withdraws the PVC area source process
wastewater emission standards for TOHAP for new and existing sources in
Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD. This rule makes no
other changes to Tables 1 and 2, or any other aspect of the PVC rule.
77 FR 22848 (April 17, 2012). The existing rule limits area source
process wastewater TOHAP emissions for new and existing sources to
0.018 parts per million by weight for all resin types.
    Subsequent to the April 14, 2012, promulgation of the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for PVC Area
Sources, PVC industry stakeholders informed the EPA that data from a
groundwater remediation stripper that is not part of the PVC Production
source category had mistakenly been submitted to the EPA as PVC process
wastewater data in response to the EPA's 2009 Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 114 survey. Those wastewater data were used to set the new and
existing area source TOHAP process wastewater emission standards. The
PVC industry stakeholders requested that the PVC area source process
wastewater TOHAP emission standards be withdrawn from the PVC Area
Source NESHAP since they are not based on data from the PVC Production
source category.
    The EPA agrees and is taking action to withdraw the area source
process wastewater TOHAP emission standards. Since promulgation of the
April 2012 PVC Area Source NESHAP, the EPA also has requested process
wastewater data in CAA section 114 surveys from companies with PVC area
sources and is presently developing a proposed rule in its
reconsideration of certain PVC area source NESHAP, including the
process wastewater TOHAP emission standards.
    Comments on this direct final rule are limited to issues directly
associated with the withdrawal of the PVC Area Source NESHAP process
wastewater emission standards for TOHAP in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDDDD. Any other issues

raised in comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive
orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDDD) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0684. This
action does not change the information collection requirements. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. To the EPA's
knowledge, there are no small entities subject to the final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk. The EPA is developing proposed area source
process wastewater standards in a reconsideration proceeding.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve any new technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. An evaluation was not needed for this
action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 23, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DDDDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer Production Area
Sources

0
2. Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

        Table 1 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  And for an affected
 For this type of emission  point . .      And for this air      source producing this      You must meet this
                  .                        pollutant . . .      type of PVC resin . . .    emission limit . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents \a\...........  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  5.3 parts per million
                                                                                by volume (ppmv).
                                       Total hydrocarbons.....  All resin types........  46 ppmv measured as
                                                                                propane.
                                       Total organic HAP \b\..  All resin types........  140 ppmv.
                                       Dioxins/furans (toxic    All resin types........  0.13 nanograms per dry
                                        equivalency basis).                               standard cubic meter
                                                                                (ng/dscm).
PVC-combined process vents \a\.......  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  0.56 ppmv.
                                       Total hydrocarbons.....  All resin types........  2.3 ppmv measured as
                                                                                propane.
                                       Total organic HAP \b\..  All resin types........  29 ppmv.
                                       Dioxins/furans (toxic    All resin types........  0.076 ng/dscm.
                                        equivalency basis).

Stripped resin.......................  Vinyl chloride.........  Bulk resin.............  7.1 parts per million
                                                                                by weight (ppmw).
                                                                Dispersion resin.......  1,500 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension resin.......  36 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension blending      140 ppmw.
                                                                 resin.
                                                                Copolymer resin........  790 ppmw.
                                       Total non-vinyl          Bulk resin.............  170 ppmw.
                                        chloride organic HAP.
                                                                Dispersion resin.......  320 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension resin.......  36 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension blending      500 ppmw.
                                                                 resin.
                                                                Copolymer resin........  1,900 ppmw.
Process Wastewater...................  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  2.1 ppmw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3-percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP
  limit.

0
3. Table 2 to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

          Table 2--to Subpart DDDDDD of Part 63--Emission Limits and Standards for New Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  And for an affected
 For this type of emission  point . .      And for this air      source producing this      You must meet this
                  .                        pollutant . . .      type of PVC resin . . .   emission  limit . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVC-only process vents \a\...........  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  5.3 parts per million
                                                                                by volume (ppmv).
                                       Total hydrocarbons.....  All resin types........  46 ppmv measured as
                                                                                propane.
                                       Total organic HAP \b\..  All resin types........  140 ppmv.
                                       Dioxins/furans (toxic    All resin types........  0.13 nanograms per dry
                                        equivalency basis).                               standard cubic meter
                                                                                (ng/dscm).
PVC-combined process vents \a\.......  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  0.56 ppmv.
                                       Total hydrocarbons.....  All resin types........  2.3 ppmv measured as
                                                                                propane.
                                       Total organic HAP \b\..  All resin types........  29 ppmv.
                                       Dioxins/furans (toxic    All resin types........  0.076 ng/dscm.
                                        equivalency basis).
Stripped resin.......................  Vinyl chloride.........  Bulk resin.............  7.1 parts per million
                                                                                by weight (ppmw).
                                                                Dispersion resin.......  1,500 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension resin.......  36 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension blending      140 ppmw.
                                                                 resin.
                                                                Copolymer resin........  790 ppmw.
                                       Total non-vinyl          Bulk resin.............  170 ppmw.
                                        chloride organic HAP.
                                                                Dispersion resin.......  320 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension resin.......  36 ppmw.
                                                                Suspension blending      500 ppmw.
                                                                 resin.
                                                                Copolymer resin........  1,900 ppmw.
Process Wastewater...................  Vinyl chloride.........  All resin types........  2.1 ppmw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission limits at 3 percent oxygen, dry basis.
\b\ Affected sources have the option to comply with either the total hydrocarbon limit or the total organic HAP
  limit.

[FR Doc. 2015-01922 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P