[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41642-41644]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0848]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Venice, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway mile 56.9, Venice, FL. Changing the operational schedule of
the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges will allow the 8 hour, Sarasota
Iron Man Triathlon to occur annually without being interrupted. This
event is anticipated to be scheduled annually on the second Sunday of
November, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0848]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking. 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 about this rule,
call or email Ms. Danielle Mauser, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge
Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions about viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On November 21, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Venice, FL'' in the Federal Register (78 FR 69803). No
comments on the proposed rule were received. No public meeting was
requested or held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The changes will have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida, but will
still meet the reasonable needs to navigation. This action will
accommodate the Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon held annually on the second
Sunday of November.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No comments were received. This rule will allow the Hatchett Creek
Bridge to remain closed to navigation for eight hours for an annual
event. This rule will revise paragraph (b) in 33 CFR 117.287 to include
this eight hour closure for the second Sunday in November annually. The
Hatchett Creek (US-41) Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet
at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of
90 feet. Vessels with a height of less than 16 feet may pass through
the bridge at any time. The Gulf of Mexico is the only alternative
route, and this route would be unacceptable for certain classes of
vessels such as tugs and barges.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    The rule was developed after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below is a summary of the
analysis based on the aforementioned statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review. It does not require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of
Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under those Orders.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it will
only have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida and it will still meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing the draw
to open for safe transit under the bridge from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the
second Sunday of November each year.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for eight hours annually. Vessels that can
safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely
available to users of the river.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, the use of
voluntary consensus standards was not considered.

14. Environment

    After analyzing this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), it has been concluded
that this action is among a category of actions, that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.287, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.287  Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

* * * * *

    (b) The draw of the Hatchett Creek (US-41) bridge, mile 56.9 at
Venice, shall open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.,
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need open only
on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour
and except between 4:25 p.m. and 5:25 p.m. when the draw need not open.
On Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
the draw need open only on the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour, and three
quarter-hour. This bridge need not open to navigation on the second
Sunday of November annually, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., to facilitate the
Iron Man Triathlon event.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 18, 2014.
J.H. Korn,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16844 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57210-57211]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4784-106]

Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership (L.P.); Notice of
Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 4784-106.
    c. Date Filed: August 31, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership (L.P.).
    e. Name of Project: Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Androscoggin River in Sagadahoc, Cumberland,
and Androscoggin Counties in the village of Pejepscot and the town of
Topsham, Maine. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Tom Uncher, Vice President, Topsham Hydro
Partners Limited Partnership, 339B Big Bay Rd, Queensbury, NY 12804,
Telephone: 1-518-743-2018<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Ryan Hansen at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The existing Pejepscot Project consists of:
(1) A 560-foot-long, 47.5-foot-high rock and gravel-filled, timber crib
overflow structure that is topped with a 5-foot-thick reinforced
concrete slab; (2) a spillway consisting of five, 96-foot-long by 3-
foot-high steel bascule gates; (3) a 225-acre, 3 mile-long reservoir at
an elevation of 67.5 feet mean sea level (MSL); (4) a 97-foot-wide,
146-foot-long brick masonry and concrete original powerhouse integral
with the dam including an integral intake structure and containing
three horizontal Francis turbine-generator units with a combined

rated capacity of approximately 1.58 megawatts (MW); (5) a 60-foot-wide
by 115-foot-long concrete with steel frame superstructure newer
powerhouse integral with the dam including an integral intake structure
and containing a Kaplan turbine and a generator with a rated capacity
of approximately 12.3 MW; (6) a vertical lift upstream fish passage
facility consisting of a 20-foot-long, 7-foot-wide steel hopper with a
sloping bottom and an 8-inch-wide, 8-foot-high V-trap inlet, a 6-foot-
wide, 8-foot-high, 110-foot-long metal flume, four attraction pumps
with a combined capacity of 160 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a
viewing window; (7) a downstream fish passage facility consisting of
two 4-foot-wide steel entry weirs with grizzly racks that pass fish
through 30-inch-diameter, 185-foot-long and 24-inch-diameter, 60-foot-
long outlet pipes, respectively; (8) a tailrace with a bulkhead-like
gate that discharges water into the Androscoggin River approximately 25
feet downstream of the powerhouses; (9) two 900-foot-long, 15-kilovolt
cable connections to substations located north and south of the
powerhouses, respectively; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    The project is operated in a run-of-river mode with an average
annual generation of 68.5 megawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in item (h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for      October 2020.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms  December 2020.
 and conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA or EIS...........  June 2021.
Comments on Draft EA or EIS.................  July 2021.
Modified terms and conditions...............  September 2021.
Commission issues Final EA or EIS...........  December 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 9, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20309 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30315]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2603-050]

Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC; HydroLand Carolinas I, LLC;
Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On May 13, 2021, Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC (transferor) and
HydroLand Carolinas I, LLC (transferee) filed jointly an application
for the transfer of license of the Franklin Hydroelectric Project No.
2603. The project is located on the Little Tennessee River, near the
City of Franklin, in Macon County, North Carolina.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Franklin Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the
transferee.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. Kyle Kroeger, Northbrook
Carolina Hydro II, LLC, c/o North Sky Capital, LLC, 33 South Sixth
Street, Suite 4646, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. John C. Ahlrichs, Northbrook
Energy, LLC, 14550 N Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd., Suite 210, Scottsdale,
AZ 85260, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with a copy to: Mr. Curt
Whitaker, c/o Rath, Young and Pignatelli, One Capital Plaza, Box 1500,
Concord, NH 03302, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For transferee: Mr. Cory Lagerstrom, CEO, HydroLand Carolinas I,
LLC, c/o HydroLand, Inc., 4603 Homestead Drive, Prairie Village, KS
66208, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to, Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any
other carrier must be addressed to, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2603-050. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.

    Dated: June 1, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11848 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59688-59692]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20583]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535; FRL-9690-02-R9]

Withdrawal and Partial Approval/Partial Disapproval of Clean Air
Plans; San Joaquin Valley, California; Contingency Measures for 2008
Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to withdraw the portion of a March 25, 2019 final action
conditionally approving state implementation plan (SIP) submissions
from the State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
to address contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the San
Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area. The SIP
submissions include the portions of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' and the ``2018 Updates to the California State
Implementation Plan'' that address the contingency measure requirement
for San Joaquin Valley. Simultaneously, the EPA is taking final action
to partially approve and partially disapprove these SIP submissions.
These actions are in response to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated Residents v.
EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 19-71223, opinion filed August 26, 2021)
remanding the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measure SIP
submissions back to the Agency for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0535. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information. If you need assistance in a language other than English or
if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On May 24, 2022, the EPA proposed to withdraw the portion of a
March 25, 2019 final action conditionally approving SIP submissions
from the State of California under the CAA to address contingency
measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley, California ozone nonattainment area.\1\ The SIP submissions
include the portions of the 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Standard (``2016 Ozone Plan'') and the 2018 Updates to the California
State Implementation Plan (``2018 SIP Update'') that address the
contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin Valley. In the same
rule, the EPA also proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove these SIP submissions. Specifically, consistent with a 2021
decision by the Ninth Circuit remanding the EPA's previous conditional
approval of the contingency measure element, the EPA proposed to
disapprove the submissions for failure to meet the contingency measure
SIP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), except for
a state measure referred to as the ``Enhanced Enforcement Activities
Program'' measure for which the EPA proposed approval based on SIP-
strengthening grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 31510. The San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS consists of San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties, and the western
portion of Kern County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we provided background information on ozone
and its precursor emissions (i.e., volatile organic compounds and
oxides of nitrogen), common sources of ozone precursor emissions, and
health effects associated with elevated ozone levels. We also provided
background information on the EPA's establishment of the ozone NAAQS,
including the ozone NAAQS that we established in 2008 (``2008 ozone
NAAQS''), the SIP submissions that are required under the CAA for areas
designated as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the roles and
responsibilities of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or
``District'').
    We also discussed the specific SIP submission requirements under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for contingency measures. In
short, contingency measures are additional controls or measures to be
implemented in the event the area fails to make reasonable further
progress (RFP) or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. Among
other requirements, contingency measures must be designed so as to be
implemented prospectively; already-implemented control measures may not
serve as contingency measures even if they provide emissions reductions
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose and should provide for
emissions reductions approximately equivalent to one year's worth of
RFP.
    In our proposed rule, we described the State of California's SIP
submissions for the San Joaquin Valley ``Extreme'' nonattainment area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the District's 2016 Ozone Plan and
the San Joaquin Valley portion of the 2018 SIP Update. We noted that,
in 2019, the EPA approved the 2016 Ozone Plan and the relevant portion
of the 2018 SIP Update as meeting all the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for the San Joaquin Valley Extreme
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the
contingency measure requirement.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 3302 (February 12, 2019), corrected at 84 FR 19680
(May 3, 2019); and 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described further in the proposed rule, the contingency measure
element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update,
includes the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program and an evaluation
of the surplus emissions reductions from already-implemented
measures.\3\ In addition, the District and CARB made commitments to
adopt and submit a contingency provision \4\ as part of the District's
architectural coatings rule within a year of the final conditional
approval. Once adopted, submitted, and approved, the contingency
provision in the architectural coatings rule would become a third part
of the contingency measure element. The EPA estimated that the
contingency measure, i.e., the contingency provision in the
architectural coatings rule, would achieve emissions reductions
equivalent to approximately 9 percent of one year's worth of RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 83 FR 61346, at 61356 (November 29, 2018). In this context,
``surplus'' emissions reductions refer to emissions reductions that
are not needed to meet other SIP requirements, such as the RFP and
attainment demonstrations.
    \4\ The specific contingency provision that the District
committed to adopt is the removal of the exemption for architectural
coatings that are sold in containers with a volume of one liter
(1.057 quarts) or less, i.e., if triggered by an EPA determination
of failure to meet an RFP milestone or failure to attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. On April 23, 2020,
CARB submitted the District's architectural coatings rule (SJVUAPCD
Rule 4601), as amended to include the contingency provision, to the
EPA as a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in our proposed rule, we conditionally approved the
contingency measure element in our March 25, 2019 final rule based on
the District's and CARB's commitments and found that the one
contingency measure (i.e., once adopted, submitted, and approved by the
EPA) would be sufficient for the State and District to meet the
contingency measure requirement for San Joaquin Valley for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, notwithstanding expected emissions reductions from the
measure equivalent to only a fraction of one year's worth of RFP.\5\ In
our March 25, 2019 final rule, we found the reductions from the one
contingency measure to be sufficient when considered together with the
substantial surplus emissions reductions we anticipated to occur in the
future from already-implemented measures and from other approved
measures in the plan.\6\ In our March 25, 2019 final rule, we approved
CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure as a SIP-
strengthening measure rather than as a contingency measure.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 84 FR 11198, at 11206 (March 25, 2019).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we noted that our final
conditional approval of the contingency measure element was the subject
of a legal challenge and that, in a 2021 Ninth

Circuit decision in the Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA case,
the Court remanded the conditional approval action back to the
Agency.\8\ In so doing, the Court found that, by taking into account
the emissions reductions from already-implemented measures to find that
the contingency measure would suffice to meet the applicable
requirement, the EPA was circumventing the court's 2016 holding in Bahr
v. EPA.\9\ The court rejected the EPA's arguments that the Agency's
approach was grounded in its long-standing guidance and was consistent
with the court's 2016 Bahr v. EPA decision. With respect to CARB's
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure, the court upheld the
EPA's approval of it as SIP-strengthening and held that the measure was
enforceable according to its terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937 (9th
Cir. 2021).
    \9\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
Under the Bahr holding, contingency measures under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) must be designed so as to be implemented
prospectively; already-implemented control measures may not serve as
contingency measures even if they provide emissions reductions
beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we found that, if we do not take
into account surplus emissions reductions, then the one contingency
measure (the contingency provision in the District's architectural
coatings rule) must shoulder the entire burden of achieving roughly one
year's worth of RFP (if triggered) but would only provide approximately
9 percent of one year's worth of progress. Because the contingency
measure would not provide reductions roughly equivalent to one year's
worth of RFP, we found that the conditional approval could no longer be
supported, and we proposed to withdraw our previous conditional
approval of the contingency measure element on that basis. For the same
reasons that justify the proposed withdrawal of the conditional
approval, we proposed to disapprove the contingency measure element
except for the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure.
    With respect to the Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program
measure, in our May 24, 2022 proposed rule, we proposed approval for
the same reasons that we provided in the March 25, 2019 final rule and
that were upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Namely, while we find that the
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure fails to meet the
requirements for a stand-alone contingency measure, we also find that
it strengthens the SIP by triggering certain actions, upon a failure to
meet RFP or a failure to attain by the applicable attainment date, that
may lead to emissions reductions that would not otherwise be achieved,
thereby contributing in part to any remedy for an RFP shortfall or
failure to attain.
    For more background information and a more extensive discussion of
the rationale for our proposed action, please see our May 24, 2022
proposed rule.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Our proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period during which
we received one response, which is a letter supporting our proposed
action.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Comment letter dated June 22, 2022, from the Association of
Irritated Residents and the Central California Environmental Justice
Network, including two exhibits: the American Lung Association's
report titled ``State of the Air 2022'' and the SJVUAPCD Executive
Director's report to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board for the June 16,
2022 Board meeting titled ``Item Number 13: Receive Update on
Attainment Planning Efforts for Federal Particulate and Ozone
Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons summarized above and presented in more detail in
the proposed rule, we are taking final action to withdraw our March 25,
2019 conditional approval of the contingency measure element of the
2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We are also taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove the contingency
measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, with respect to the contingency measure requirements under CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Specifically, we are disapproving the
contingency measure element except for the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure. We are approving the Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure because, while we find that the Enhanced
Enforcement Activities Program measure fails to meet the requirements
for a stand-alone contingency measure, we also find that it strengthens
the SIP by triggering certain actions, upon a failure to meet RFP or
failure to attain by the applicable attainment date, that may lead to
emissions reductions that would not otherwise be achieved, thereby
contributing in part to any remedy for an RFP shortfall or failure to
attain.
    Through this final action, we are revising the section of the CFR
where the California SIP is identified by removing the contingency
measure element of the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, that we previously approved (conditionally), except for the
Enhanced Enforcement Activities Program measure.\11\ Lastly, we are
making a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule
because, notwithstanding the partial disapproval of the contingency
measure element, the 2016 Ozone Plan, as modified by the 2018 SIP
Update, reflects adopted control measures and contains enforceable
commitments that fully satisfy the emission reduction requirements for
RFP and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We are also revising 40 CFR 52.220(c)(514)(ii)(A)(2) to
clarify that the applicability of CARB's Enhanced Enforcement
Activities Program measure is limited to San Joaquin Valley and
limited to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    \12\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, the
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec.  93.118 or approves
the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision
is determined. Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of
the contingency measures element does not result in a transportation
conformity freeze in the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area
and the metropolitan planning organizations may continue to make
transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a consequence of the partial disapproval of the contingency
measure element, within 24 months of the effective date of this action,
the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan under section
110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP submissions that correct the
plan deficiencies. In addition, under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset sanction
in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months after the effective
date of this action, and the highway funding sanction in CAA section
179(b)(1) will be imposed six months after the offset sanction is
imposed. A sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a
subsequent SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before
the applicable deadline.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://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

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because the partial SIP disapproval action under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves
portions of certain state plans submitted 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 action 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. The partial SIP
disapproval action under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves portions of certain state plans submitted for
inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the
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 Clean Air Act prescribes that various
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will result from
disapproval actions 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 partial 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
portions of certain pre-existing plans 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 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 portions of
certain state plans for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
that the EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving would
not 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,
and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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 (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
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 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 partial SIP disapproval action under section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves portions of certain state plans
submitted for inclusion into the SIP.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. 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 action is not
subject to requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA because application
of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    The state did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.

K. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 16, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (c)(496)(ii)(B)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(514)(ii)(A)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(514)(ii)(A)(11).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (496) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (5) Previously approved on March 25, 2019, in paragraph
(c)(496)(ii)(B)(4) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
subchapter 6.4 (``Contingency for Attainment'') of the ``2016 Ozone
Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016.
* * * * *
    (514) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,
adopted on October 25, 2018, chapter VIII (``SIP Elements for the San
Joaquin Valley''), chapter X (``Contingency Measures'') for
implementation in San Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone standard, and
Appendix A (``Nonattainment Area Inventories''), pages A-1, A-2 and A-
27 through A-30, only.
* * * * *
    (11) Previously approved on March 25, 2019 in paragraph
(c)(514)(ii)(A)(2) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
subchapter VIII.D (``Contingency Measures'') of chapter VIII (``SIP
Elements for the San Joaquin Valley'') of the ``2018 Updates to the
California State Implementation Plan,'' adopted on October 25, 2018.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.237  Part D disapproval.

    (a) * * *
    (13) The contingency measures element of the ``2016 Ozone Plan for
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,'' adopted June 16, 2016, as modified by the
``2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan,'' adopted
October 25, 2018, for San Joaquin Valley with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, with the exception of CARB's Enhanced Enforcement Activities
Program measure.
* * * * *

Sec.  52.248  [Amended]

0
4. Section 52.248 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (g).

[FR Doc. 2022-20583 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2435-2436]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Tenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Plenary Joint with WG-98

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Tenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Plenary Joint with WG-98.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Tenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Plenary Joint with WG-98.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 14-17, 2017 09:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Tenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Plenary
Joint with WG-98. The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, March 13, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda overview and approval
3. Fort Lauderdale meeting review and approval
4. Review Action Items from Fort Lauderdale meeting
5. ``Phasing in'' RTCA/DO-204B, EUROCAE/ED-62B--Timeline and ToR
6. EASA presentation
     EASA approval process
     EU rules on aircraft tracking and location of aircraft in
distress
7. Briefing of: ICAO GADSS-AG, COSPAS-SARSAT, activities
8. Other Industry coordination and presentations

9. Working group of the whole meeting (rest of the day)

Wednesday, March 14, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

Working group of the whole meeting

Thursday, March 15, 2017--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

Working group of the whole meeting

Friday, March 17, 2017--9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

1. Plenary meeting in the morning
2. WGs' reports
2. Action item review
3. Future meeting plans and dates
4. Industry coordination and presentations (if any)
5. Other business
6. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public for plenary discussion,
but limited to space availability. Registration for this meeting is
required. Working group of the whole items are closed to the public.
With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present
oral statements at the plenary meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in
Washington, DC on January 4, 2017.

Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-00117 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3674-3676]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-509-001]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amended Marshall County Mine
Panel 19E and 20E Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Marshall County Mine Panel 19E
and 20E Project (Project) involving construction and operation of
facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in
Marshall County, West Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity/authorization. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover
concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred
to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues
to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
February 12, 2020.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-509-001) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern filed an amendment to its Abbreviated Application for
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and for Related
Authorizations for its proposed Marshall County Mine Panel 19E Project,
submitted on September 4, 2019 in Docket No. CP19-509-000. By this
Amendment, Texas Eastern requests authorization under the Natural Gas
Act, Section 7(c) to excavate, elevate, and replace certain segments of
its pipelines that traverse the Marshall County Coal Company's
(Marshall Coal) Mine Panels 19E and 20E, located in Marshall County,
West Virginia. This Amendment reflects activities related to both Mine
Panels 19E and 20E, and the construction activities proposed replace in
their entirety the construction activities proposed in the Application.
    Texas Eastern proposes to excavate and elevate pipeline segments of
its Lines 10, 15, 25, and 30, that range from 30-inch to 36-inch-
diameter and to monitor stress and strain levels on the pipelines from
potential ground subsidence due to Marshall Coal's scheduled longwall
mining activities.

Concurrent with pipeline elevation, portions of Lines 10 and 15 would
be replaced with new pipe to accommodate a minimum Class 2 design.\1\
Texas Eastern would also perform maintenance activities on segments of
Lines 25 and 30. The four mainline segments will be returned to natural
gas service above ground, while remaining elevated using sandbags and
skids for the duration of Marshall Coal's longwall mining activities
and potential ground subsidence. Texas Eastern would reinstall the
elevated pipeline segments as soon as possible to minimize the length
of time that the segments are above ground, and to allow the right-of-
way to be restored to its pre-construction use in accordance with
landowner agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Lines 10 and 15 were installed prior to the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act, and are grandfathered to operate at greater
than 72% of Specified Minimum Yield Strength. The portions of these
pipelines included in this Project will be replaced with pipe that
meets or exceeds the current Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration regulations. See 49 CFR 192.611(a) (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Marshall Coal recently informed Texas Eastern that longwall mining
activities for Mine Panel 20E may now begin as early as August of 2021.
As such, Texas Eastern would need to commence activities to protect its
pipelines that traverse Mine Panel 20E concurrent with planned
activities to protect its pipelines that traverse Mine Panel 19E
(longwall mining activities in Mine Panel 19E are anticipated to begin
in October 2020) in order to ensure timely stabilization of the
pipeline segments above ground for the duration of the longwall mining
activities scheduled to take place at both Mine Panels. Completion of
longwall mining activities and potential subsidence is anticipated in
December 2020 for Mine Panel 19E and in October 2021 for Mine Panel
20E. As such, Texas Eastern is seeking to amend the timing set forth in
the Application for completion of Project activities from October 2021
to October 2022, prior to the start of Texas Eastern's winter heating
season
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction workspace would disturb about 34.2 acres of land for
the pipeline excavation, elevation, and/or replacement. Following
construction, Texas Eastern would maintain about 12.0 acres of existing
right-of-way for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \3\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices
related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,

CP09-509). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: January 13, 2020.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00966 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27453-27457]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69517; File No. SR-BOX-2013-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 7170 (Obvious and Catastrophic Errors)

May 6, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 26, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 7170 (Obvious and Catastrophic
Errors). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7170(h)(2)
to permit the nullification of trades involving catastrophic errors in
certain situations specified below. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to help market participants better
manage their risk by addressing the situation where, under current
rules, a trade can be adjusted to a price outside of a customer's
limit. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7170(h) to
enable a Public Customer \4\

who is the contra-side to a trade that is deemed to be a catastrophic
error to have the trade nullified in instances where the adjusted price
would violate the Public Customer's limit price. Only if the Public
Customer, or his agent, affirms the Public Customer's willingness to
accept the adjusted price through the Public Customer's limit price
within 20 minutes of notification of the catastrophic error ruling
would the trade be adjusted; otherwise it would be nullified. Today,
all catastrophic error trades are adjusted, not nullified, on all of
the options exchanges. This is a competitive filing that is based on a
proposal recently submitted by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') and
approved by the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under BOX Rule 100(a)(51) the term ``Public Customer'' means
a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. This includes
Professionals under BOX Rule 100(a)(50), but not broker-dealers or
Market Makers.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69304 (April 4,
2013), 78 FR 21482 (April 10, 2013) (Order Approving SR-Phlx-2013-
005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, Rule 7170 governs obvious and catastrophic errors.
Obvious errors are calculated under the rule by determining a
theoretical price and determining, based on objective standards,
whether the trade should be nullified or adjusted. The rule also
contains a process for requesting an obvious error review. Certain more
substantial errors may fall under the category of a catastrophic error,
for which a longer time period is permitted to request a review and for
which trades can only be adjusted (not nullified). Trades are adjusted
pursuant to an adjustment table that, in effect, assesses an adjustment
penalty. By adjusting trades above or below the theoretical price, the
Rule assesses a ``penalty'' in that the adjustment price is not as
favorable as the amount the party making the error would have received
had it not made the error.
Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to change the catastrophic
error process to permit certain trades to be nullified. The definition
and calculation of a catastrophic error would not change.\6\ First
whether a transaction is a catastrophic error is determined by the
Exchange's MRC,\7\ if both parties to the trade are Public Customers
then the trade would be adjusted under the current rule. However, if
only one of the parties is a Public Customer, then the adjusted price
would be compared to the limit price of the order. If the adjusted
price would violate the limit price (in other words, be higher than the
limit price if it is a buy and lower than the limit price if it is a
sell order), then the Public Customer would be offered an opportunity
to nullify the trade. If the Public Customer (or the Public Customer's
broker-dealer agent) does not respond within 20 minutes, the trade
would be adjusted under the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nor is the definition or process for obvious errors
changing.
    \7\ The MRC is the BOX Market Regulation Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes should ensure that a Public Customer is not forced
into a situation where the original limit price is violated and thereby
the Public Customer is forced to spend additional dollars for a trade
at a price the customer had no interest in trading and may not be able
to afford.

    EXAMPLE 1--Resting Public Customer forced to adjust through his
limit price and would prefer nullification.

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)

Customer A enters order on BOX to buy 10 GOOG May 750 puts for $25
(cost of $25,000, Customer has $50,000 in his trading account).

10:00:00 a.m.

GOOG trading at $750
May 750 puts $29.00-$31.00 (100x100) on all exchanges

10:04:00 a.m.

GOOG drops to $690
May 750 puts $25-$100 (10x10) BOX May 750 puts $20-$125 (10x10) CBOE
May 750 puts $10-$200 (100x100) on all other exchanges

10:04:01 a.m.

Customer B enters order to sell 10 May 750 puts for $25 (credit of
$25,000)

10:04:01 a.m.

    10 May 750 puts execute at $25 ($35 under parity) \8\ with Customer
A buying and Customer B selling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Parity is the intrinsic value of an option when it is in-
the-money. With respect to puts, it is calculated by subtracting the
price of the underlying from the strike price of the put. With
respect to calls, it is calculated by subtracting the strike price
from the price of the underlying.

10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)

GOOG trading $690
May 750 puts $75-$78 (100x100) BOX May 750 puts $75-$80 (10x10) CBOEMay
750 puts $70-$80 (100x100) All other exchanges

    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the trade
would have been nullified in accordance with Rule 7170 because one of
the parties to the trade was a non-market maker.

4:00:00 p.m. (the close)

GOOG trading $710
May 750 puts $60-$63 (100x100) BOX May 750 puts $55-$70 (10x10) CBOE
May 750 puts $50-$70 (100x100) All other exchanges

Day 2

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)

    Customer B, submits S10 GOOG May 750 puts at $25 under Catastrophic
Review. Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is adjusted
to $68 ($75 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price less $7 adjustment penalty).

9:30:00 a.m. (the opening)

GOOG trading $725
May 750 puts open $48.00-$51.00 (100x100) on all exchanges

    Under current rule:

Without a choice, Customer A is forced to spend $68 (cost of $68,000,
with only $25,000 in his account)
Puts are now trading $48, so Customer A shows a loss of $20,000 ($68
less $48x10 contracts x 100 multiplier)

    Under proposed rule:

Customer A would be able to choose to have the B10 GOOG May 750 puts
nullified avoiding both a loss, and an expenditure of capital exceeding
the amount in his account.
Customer B would be relieved of the obligation to sell the puts at 25
because the trade would be nullified.

    EXAMPLE 2--Resting Public Customer trades, sells out his position,
thus would choose to keep the adjusted trade and avoid nullification.

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)

Customer A enters order on BOX to Buy 10 BAC April 7.00 calls for $.01
(cost of $10 total. (Customer has $3,000 in his account).

10:00:00 a.m.

BAC trading $11
April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (100x100) on all exchanges

10:04:00 a.m.

BAC Trading $11
April 7 calls $.01-$4.70 (10x10) BOX April 7 calls
$4.50-$4.70 (10x10) CBOE
April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10)) All other exchanges

10:04:01 a.m.

Customer B enters order to sell 10 April 7 calls at $.01 on BOX with an
ISO indicator (which allows trade through)

10:04:01 a.m.

10 April 7 calls execute at $.01 on BOX Customer A buying and Customer
B selling.

10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)

BAC is $11
April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10) BOX April 7 calls
$4.50-$4.70 (10x10) CBOE
April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10)) All other exchanges

    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the trade
would have been nullified.

11:00:00 a.m.

BAC trading $9.60
April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10x10) BOX April 7 calls
$3.00-$3.25 (10x10) CBOE
April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10x10)) All other exchanges
Customer A sells 10 April 7 calls at $3.00 (a total credit of $3,000
for a $2,990 profit)

3:00:00 p.m.

BAC trading $12.80
April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10x10) BOX April 7 calls
$5.80-$6.00 (10x10) CBOE
April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10x10)) All other exchanges
Customer A has now no position and would be at risk of a loss if
nullified.

3:20:00 p.m.

Customer B submits S10 BAC April 7 calls at $.01 under Catastrophic
Error Review. Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is
adjusted to $2.50 ($4.50 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment
penalty).

    Impact:

Under current Rule: Customer A would be adjusted to $2.50 ($4.50 (the
10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment penalty).

    Under Proposed rule:

Illustrating the need for a choice, Customer A chooses within 20
minutes to accept an adjustment to $2.50 instead of a nullification,
locking in a gain of $500 instead of $2.990 (B 10 at $2.50 vs. S10 at
$3.00).
If not given a choice, Customer A would be naked short 10 calls at
$3.00 that are now offered at $6.00 (a $3,000 loss).
    These examples illustrate the need for the Public Customer to have
a choice in order to manage his risk. By applying a notification time
limit of 20 minutes, it lessens the likelihood that the Public Customer
will try to let the direction of the market for that option dictate his
decision for a long period of time, thus exposing the contra side to
more risk. This 20 minute time period is akin to the notification
period currently used in the rule respecting the notification period
for starting the obvious error process for non-Market Maker Options
Participants.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BOX Rule 7170(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a market maker or a broker-dealer, the penalty that is part of
the price adjustment process is usually enough to offset the additional
dollars spent, and they can often trade out of the position with little
risk and a potential profit. For a Public Customer who is not immersed
in the day-to-day trading of the markets, this risk may be
unacceptable. A Public Customer is also less likely to be watching
trading activity in a particular option throughout the day and less
likely to be closely focused on the execution reports the Public
Customer receives after a trade is executed. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that it is fair and reasonable, and consistent with statutory
standards, to change the procedure for catastrophic errors for Public
Customers and not for other Participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is a fair way to address
the issue of a Public Customer's limit price, yet still balance the
competing interests of certainty that trades stand versus dealing with
true errors. In 2009, the Exchange amended Rule 7170 to adopt the
catastrophic error provision. In doing so, the Exchange stated that it
had ``weighed carefully the need to assure that one market participant
is not permitted to receive a windfall at the expense of another market
participant that made an Obvious Error, against the need to assure that
market participants are not simply being given an opportunity to
reconsider poor trading decisions. The Exchange stated that, while it
believed that the Obvious Error Rule strikes the correct balance in
most situations, in some extreme situations, Participants may not be
aware of errors that result in very large losses within the time
periods currently required under the rule. In this type of extreme
situation, the Exchange believes Participants should be given more time
to seek relief so that there is a greater opportunity to mitigate very
large losses and reduce the corresponding large wind-falls. However, to
maintain the appropriate balance, the Exchange believes Participants
should only be given more time when the execution price is much further
away from the theoretical price than is required for Obvious Errors so
that relief is only provided in extreme circumstances.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59197 (January 5,
2009), 74 FR 969 (January 9, 2009)(SR-BSE-2008-52)(Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Catastrophic Errors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with those
principles because it strikes the aforementioned balance. The Exchange
is proposing to amend Rule 7170 to eliminate the risk associated with
Public Customers receiving an adjustment to a trade that is outside of
the limit price of their order, when there is a catastrophic error
ruling respecting their trade. The new provision would continue to
entail specific and objective procedures. Furthermore, the new
provision more fairly balances the potential windfall to one market
participant against the potential reconsideration of a trading decision
under the guise of an error.
    The obvious and catastrophic error rules of the options exchanges
are similar, especially with respect to only adjusting trades that
result in a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes,
based on the aforementioned example, the recently approved Phlx filing,
and Participant requests that this aspect of the catastrophic error
process should change, as explained above. Relatedly, members of
SIFMA's Options Committee also expressed concern during a recent
meeting that this particular outcome may not be appropriate.
Accordingly, the Exchange has determined to amend the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, by helping Participants better manage the risk associated
with potential erroneous trades. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposal is consistent with these principles because it
provides a fair process for Public Customers to address catastrophic
errors involving a limit order. In particular, the proposal still
permits nullification in certain situations. Further, it gives Public
Customers a choice. For two reasons, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposal is unfairly

discriminatory, even though it offers some Participants (Public
Customers) a choice as to whether a trade is nullified or adjusted,
while other Participants (Broker-Dealers and Market Makers) will
continue to have all of their catastrophic errors adjusted. First, the
rule currently differentiates among Participants: the notification
period to begin the obvious error process is different for Market
Makers and non-Market Maker Options Participants, and whether a trade
is adjusted or busted also differs.\13\ Second, options rules often
treat Public Customers in a special way,\14\ recognizing that Public
Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the
markets, less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular
option throughout the day and may have limited funds in their trading
accounts. Accordingly, differentiating among Participant types by
permitting Public Customers to have a choice as to whether to nullify a
trade involving a catastrophic error is not unfairly discriminatory,
because it is reasonable and fair to provide Public Customers with
additional options to protect themselves against the consequences of
obvious errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ See Rule 7170(g)(1).
    \14\ For example, many options exchange priority rules treat
Public Customers orders differently and some options exchanges only
accept certain types of orders from Public Customers. Most options
exchanges charge different fees for Public Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or nullified,
depending on whether one of the parties is a Public Customer, because a
person would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other
party is or is not a Public Customer. The Exchange believes that the
proposal nevertheless promotes just and equitable principles of trade
and protects investors and the public interest, because it eliminates a
more serious uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price
uncertainty. Today, a Public Customer's order can be adjusted to a
significantly different price, as the examples above illustrate, which
is more impactful than the possibility of nullification. Furthermore,
there is uncertainty in the current obvious error portion of Rule 7170
(as well as the rules of other options exchanges), which Participants
have dealt with for a number of years. Specifically, Rule 7170(g)(2)
provides that if it is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred:
(A) where each party to the transaction is either a market maker on the
Exchange, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted by
the MRC, unless both parties agree to nullify the transaction within
ten minutes of being notified by the MRC of the Obvious Error; or (B)
where at least one party to the transaction in which an Obvious Error
occurred is not a market maker on the Exchange, the MRC will nullify
the transaction, unless both parties agree to adjust the price of the
transaction within 30 minutes of being notified by the MRC of the
Obvious Error. Therefore, a market maker who prefers adjustments over
nullification cannot guarantee that outcome, because, if he trades with
a Public Customer, a resulting obvious error would only be adjusted if
the Public Customer agreed to an adjustment. This uncertainty has been
embedded in the rule and accepted by market participants. The Exchange
believes that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on whether a
Public Customer is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent with
the Act, because the ability to nullify a Public Customer's trade
involving a catastrophic error should prevent the price uncertainty
that mandatory adjustment under the current rule creates, which should
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the public interest.
    The proposal sets forth an objective process based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. In
addition, the Exchange has again weighed carefully the need to assure
that one market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at
the expense of another market participant that made a catastrophic
error, against the need to assure that market participants are not
simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading decisions.
Accordingly, the Exchange has determined that introducing a
nullification procedure for catastrophic errors is appropriate and
consistent with the Act.
    Consistent with Section 6(b)(8),\15\ the Exchange also believes
that the proposal does not impose a burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as described
further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to the filing submitted by Phlx.\16\ The Exchange
believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform rules
regarding catastrophic errors. Currently, most options exchanges have
similar, although not identical, rules regarding catastrophic errors.
To the extent that this proposal would result in the Exchange's rule
being different, market participants may choose to route orders to the
Exchange, helping the Exchange compete against other options exchanges
for order flow based on its Public Customers service by having a
process more responsive to current market needs. The proposal does not
impose a burden on intra-market competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because, even
though it treats different market participants differently, the Obvious
and Catastrophic Errors rule has always been structured that way and
adding the ability for Public Customers to choose whether a
catastrophic error trade is nullified does not materially alter the
risks faced by other market participants in managing the consequences
of obvious errors. Overall, the proposal is intended to help market
participants better manage the risk associated with potential erroneous
options trades and does not impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change as

required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\17\ The proposed rule change is
substantially similar in all material respects to a proposal submitted
by Phlx that was recently approved by the Commission.\18\ The Exchange
believes that this proposed rule change, which is essential for
competitive purposes and to promote a free and open market for the
benefit of investors, does not raise any new, unique or substantive
issues from those raised in the Phlx filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BOX-2013-22 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-BOX-2013-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-22 and should be
submitted on or before May 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2013-11140 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P