[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4040-4045]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01041]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88002; File No. SR-BOX-2019-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rules Governing the Trading of Equity
Securities on the Exchange Through a Facility of the Exchange Known as
the Boston Security Token Exchange LLC

January 16, 2020.
    On September 27, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or ``BOX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to adopt rules governing the listing and trading of equity
securities that would be NMS stocks on the Exchange through a facility
of the Exchange known as the Boston Security Token Exchange LLC
(``BSTX''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 18, 2019.\3\ On November 29, 2019, pursuant
to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\4\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\
On December 26, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended the proposed rule change as
originally filed.\6\ The Commission has received one comment letter on
the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission is publishing this notice
and order to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \8\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87287 (October 11,
2019), 84 FR 56022 (October 18, 2019) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87641 (November 29,
2019), 84 FR 66701 (December 5, 2019). The Commission designated
January 16, 2020, as the date by which the Commission shall approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal to:
(1) Adopt listing standards that are similar to those of NYSE
American, rather than quantitative listing standards that are 20%
lower than those of NYSE American as initially proposed; (2) remove
the requirement that, for a period of one year from the commencement
of trading in security tokens on BSTX, non-BSTX Participants must
obtain a wallet address from the Exchange and agree to report their
end-of-day security token balances to BSTX; (3) provide for an
omnibus wallet address to which the Exchange would instruct Wallet
Managers to allocate unreported end-of-day balances for a given type
of security token, resulting either from security tokens held by
non-BSTX Participants who are not subject to the end-of-day balance
reporting requirement or from any missing end-of-day balance reports
among BSTX Participants; (4) state that a BSTX Participant who fails
to obtain a wallet address prior to acquiring a position in a
security token, fails to report the end-of-day balances in a timely
manner, or inaccurately reports such balances would be subject to
disciplinary action; (5) add additional listing requirements for
security tokens issued by affiliates of the Exchange; (6) require at
least three market makers upon initial listing for a security token
that does not utilize a designated market maker (``DMM''); (7) state
that the Ethereum blockchain serves as ancillary records that would
not create or convey any ownership of security tokens or shareholder
equity in the issuer; and (8) make technical and conforming changes.
See text accompanying infra note 12 for the Exchange's definition of
``security tokens,'' infra note 15 for the definition of ``BSTX
Participant,'' and infra note 18 for the definition of ``Wallet
Manager.'' When the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to BOX-2019-19,
it also submitted the text of the partial amendment as a comment
letter to the filing, which the Commission made publicly available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2019-19/srbox201919-6613675-202939.pdf (``Amendment No. 1'').
    \7\ See Letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, SIFMA, to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated January 13, 2020,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2019-19/srbox201919-6640676-203567.pdf (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    As described in the Notice and Amendment No. 1,\9\ the Exchange
proposes to adopt rules governing the trading of equity securities
through a facility of the Exchange known as BSTX.\10\ BSTX proposes to
operate a fully automated, price-time priority execution system to
trade equity securities that are NMS stocks and meet BSTX listing
standards.\11\ These securities would have ancillary records of
ownership reflecting certain end-of-day security token balances as
reported by market participants that would be created and maintained
using distributed ledger technology (such securities to be referred to
as ``security tokens'').\12\ According to the Exchange, official
records of security ownership would be maintained by participants at
The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), and attribution of a security
token on the Ethereum blockchain would not convey ownership of
shareholder equity in the issuer.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3; Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56022.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. at 56026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, security tokens would have their
ancillary record of ownership recorded on the Ethereum blockchain using
a protocol standard determined by BSTX (the ``BSTX Security Token
Protocol'').\14\ The Exchange proposes that each BSTX Participant \15\
would be required to establish, either directly or through a carrying
firm, a whitelisted wallet address to which its end-of-day security
token ownership balances may be recorded.\16\ The Exchange proposes
that each business day, each BSTX Participant would be required to
report to BSTX certain end-of-day security token ownership balances in
a manner and form acceptable to BSTX.\17\ The Exchange would then, in
coordination with a Wallet Manager,\18\ cause the Ethereum blockchain
to be updated as an ancillary recordkeeping mechanism to reflect
changes in ownership of security tokens.\19\ According to the Exchange,
non-BSTX Participants that may trade security tokens would not be
subject to the requirement to obtain a wallet address or to the end-of-
day ownership reporting requirements.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 56025.
    \15\ A ``BSTX Participant'' would be a participant that is
authorized to trade security tokens on the Exchange. See proposed
BSTX Rule 17000(a)(11).
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56027. According to the
Exchange, a whitelisted wallet address would be a permissioned
number associated with a particular market participant to which
security tokens may be sent. The Registry Smart Contract, which is
an ancillary smart contract within the BSTX Security Token Protocol,
contains a list of whitelisted addresses. See id. at 56026-27.
    \17\ See id. at 56027.
    \18\ The Exchange proposes to define a ``Wallet Manager'' as a
party approved by BSTX to operate software compatible with the BSTX
Security Token Protocol. See proposed Rule 17000(a)(31). According
to the Exchange, the Wallet Manager would act as a third-party
service provider for the Exchange that would facilitate establishing
wallet addresses and updating the Ethereum blockchain. See Notice,
supra note 3, 84 FR at 56027 n.44.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56027-28.
    \20\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, to account for instances in which a BSTX
Participant fails to report or inaccurately reports its end-of-day
ownership balance and the position of security tokens held by non-BSTX
Participants who are not subject to the end-of-day ownership reporting
requirement, the Exchange would require the Wallet Mangers to allocate
all such unreported security token balances for a given security token
to a single omnibus wallet address.\21\ The Exchange states that the
Ethereum blockchain would display security token balances that would
reflect end-of-day ownership balances reported to BSTX pursuant to
proposed BSTX Rule 17020 \22\ and a balance allocated to the omnibus
wallet address for any type of security token for which the sum of the
reported positions is less than the number of security tokens known by
the Exchange to be issued and outstanding. Thus, according to the
Exchange, the Ethereum blockchain may not reflect the precise
distribution of a security token among holders, and may also display
inaccurate information to the extent that BSTX Participants
inaccurately report their end-of-day ownership balances to BSTX.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 6.
    \22\ Proposed BSTX Rule 17020 sets forth the proposed end-of-day
reporting requirements for BSTX Participants. See proposed BSTX Rule
17020.
    \23\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that security tokens would be only eligible
for trading on another national securities exchange if that exchange is
able to support trading in security tokens \24\ and has in effect rules
providing for the trading of security tokens on that exchange,
including rules requiring that exchange members obtain a wallet address
compatible with the BSTX Security Token Protocol and adopt some
mechanism to report end-of-day security token ownership balances to
BSTX.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56029.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes rules for participation on BSTX,
business conduct for BSTX Participants, financial and operational rules
for BSTX Participants, supervision, trading practices, discipline,
trading rules, and market making.\26\ In addition, the Exchange
proposes listing standards that, according to the Exchange, are similar
to the listing standards of NYSE American.\27\ The Exchange proposes
that these listing standards would also specify that all listed
security tokens must comply with the BSTX Security Token Protocol.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 56030-43. The trading rules that the Exchange
proposes include provisions for primary distributions of securities
to be made through the Exchange, including using an auction process.
See id. at 56035-36.
    \27\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 10-11.
    \28\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, all transactions in security tokens
would clear and settle in accordance with the rules, policies, and
procedures of registered clearing agencies.\29\ The Exchange states
that BSTX anticipates that DTC would serve as the securities depository
for security tokens and that confirmed trades in securities tokens on
BSTX would be transmitted to National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') for clearing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 56023.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Comment

    To date the Commission has received one comment letter on the
proposal.\31\ The commenter notes that the proposal was only recently
brought to its attention because it did not anticipate that a filing by
an options exchange to create a facility could impact the U.S. equities
markets.\32\ The commenter expresses concern that the approval of the
proposal ``could be a significant change for the equities market.''
\33\ The

commenter requests an extension of the comment period to consider the
proposal, particularly on the implications of the characterization of
security tokens as NMS stocks, the use of blockchain, and the potential
impact on unlisted trading privileges.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 7.
    \32\ Id. at 2.
    \33\ Id. The commenter's letter also references another filing
by the Exchange, SR-BOX-2019-37, which also relates to the
commencement of operations of BSTX. Id. at 1 (referencing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87868 (December 30, 2019), 85 FR 345
(January 3, 2020) (SR-BOX-2019-37) (``BSTX Corporate Governance
Proposal'')). With the BSTX Corporate Governance Proposal, BSTX
proposes the corporate governance documents for the BSTX facility,
and describes the proposed initial ownership structure for the
facility, which would be 50% owned by BOX Digital Markets LLC, a
subsidiary of BOX Holdings Group LLC--an affiliate of the Exchange,
and 50% owned by tZERO Group, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of
Overstock.com, Inc. See id. The commenter also requests more time to
provide feedback on the BSTX Corporate Governance Proposal. See
SIFMA Letter, supra note 7, at 2.
    \34\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 7, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-BOX-
2019-19 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \35\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\36\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, which requires,
among other things, that a national securities exchange be so organized
and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the
Exchange Act and to comply, and enforce compliance by its members and
persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the
Exchange Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of
the Exchange; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Exchange Act, which requires
that the rules of the exchange provide a fair procedure for the
prohibition or limitation by the exchange of any person with respect to
access to services offered by the exchange; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act, which requires
that the rules of the exchange do not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Exchange Act; \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 11A of the Exchange Act, which provides the
Commission's authority to establish and maintain a national market
system; \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 12 of the Exchange Act, which provides, among
other things, certain requirements that a national securities exchange
must comply with to extend unlisted trading privileges to securities
originally listed on another national securities exchange; \42\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act, which provides, among
other things, the Commission's authority to establish linked or
coordinated facilities for the clearance and settlement of transactions
in securities.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \44\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\45\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the applicable rules and
regulations.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1),\47\
6(b)(5),\48\ 6(b)(7),\49\ 6(b)(8),\50\ 11A,\51\ 12,\52\ and 17A \53\ of
the Exchange Act or any other provision of the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') or the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act,\54\ any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \54\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \55\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the

proposal should be approved or disapproved by February 13, 2020. Any
person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission
must file that rebuttal by February 27, 2020.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice and Amendment No. 1,\56\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions and
asks commenters to submit data where appropriate to support their
views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Notice, supra note 3; Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What are commenters' views on the use of distributed
ledger technology to create and maintain unofficial ancillary records
of ownership reflecting certain end-of-day security token ownership
balances as reported by market participants, and the use of the
Ethereum blockchain in particular? What are commenters' views on
whether the use of the Ethereum blockchain for an ancillary record of
ownership is consistent with referring to the security as a ``token''?
What are commenters' views on advantages and disadvantages of having an
unofficial ancillary record of a security's ownership on the Ethereum
blockchain, in addition to an official record of such security's
ownership through DTC, including costs and benefit to investors or the
integrity of the securities markets?
     What are commenters' views on potential discrepancies that
may exist between the official records of ownership and the unofficial
ancillary records maintained on the Ethereum blockchain, how erroneous
entries of transactions on the Ethereum blockchain would be identified
and addressed, and how the unofficial ancillary record would be updated
after events such as dividends and stock splits? Do commenters believe
that potential discrepancies between the official records of ownership
and the unofficial ancillary records maintained on the Ethereum
blockchain could pose risks to investors, other market participants,
the securities market, or the national clearance and settlement system?
Please explain why or why not.
     What are commenters' views on whether the ancillary
recordkeeping mechanism is inconsistent with Section 17A(a)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Exchange Act,\57\ which directs the Commission to facilitate the
establishment of linked or coordinated facilities for clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, or any other provision of the
Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange states that ``[p]ursuant to Rule 12f-5 under
the Exchange Act,\58\ an exchange may not extend unlisted trading
privileges to any security unless the national securities exchange has
in effect rules providing for transactions in the class or type of
security to which the exchange extends unlisted trading privileges''
\59\ and that to be able to extend unlisted trading privileges to BSTX-
listed security tokens, another national security exchanges would need
rules that would ``(i) requir[e] that exchange members obtain a wallet
address compatible with the BSTX Security Token Protocol in order to
attribute security token balances with that exchange member; and (ii)
adopt[] some mechanism to report end-of-day security token [ownership]
balances to BSTX in order to facilitate updates of ownership to the
Ethereum blockchain as an ancillary recordkeeping mechanism.'' \60\
What are commenters' views on how a national securities exchange
seeking to extend unlisted trading privileges to a BSTX-listed security
token might fulfill these requirements and whether doing so would
impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act? Do commenters agree
with the Exchange's assertion that the burden on another exchange of
adopting additional rules to extend unlisted trading privileges to
trade BSTX-listed security tokens is no different than the burden on an
exchange that only trades equities having to first adopt rules to
govern options trading prior to offering trading in options? \61\ Why
or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5 (citation in original).
    \59\ Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56029.
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ See id. at 56055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Do commenters believe that the proposal, including the
proposed requirement that the BSTX Participants report their end-of-day
ownership balances to BSTX to be recorded to the Ethereum blockchain,
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system for NMS stock? \62\
Why or why not? Do commenters believe that the proposal is in the
public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and is
designed to maintain fair and orderly markets to assure, among other
things, fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange
markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange
markets; and the practicability of brokers executing investors' orders
in the best market? \63\ Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \63\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(ii), (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Do commenters agree with the Exchange's assertion that
requiring BSTX Participants to report their end-of-day ownership
balances to the Exchange, while non-BSTX Participants would not be
subject to the same requirement, would ``impose only a minimal burden
on BSTX Participants''? \64\ Why or why not? Do commenters believe that
the requirements imposed by the end-of-day ownership reporting
requirements would result in a burden or impact on competition between
BSTX Participants and non-BSTX Participants or otherwise, that would be
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Exchange Act? Why or why
not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What are commenters' views on the Exchange's proposal to
disseminate end-of-day ownership information, potential inaccuracies in
that information, how and when that information would be disseminated,
and how market participants would have access to view this information
on the Ethereum blockchain? What are commenters' views on any
advantages or disadvantages with the Exchange's proposal to disseminate
end-of-day ownership information?
     What are commenters' views on the use of an omnibus
account to reflect discrepancies between the sum of end-of-day balances
reported by BSTX Participants and the number of security tokens known
by the Exchange to be issued and outstanding? Do commenters have
concerns about how and when the balances attributed to the omnibus
wallet address would be calculated and by whom? What are commenters'
views on how the number of securities for a given security token
attributed to the omnibus wallet address may change over time and the
potential for the total number of securities for a security token
attributed to the omnibus wallet address to exceed the number of
disseminated whitelisted address for that security token? What are
commenters' views on whether they would have access to the information
necessary to differentiate the balances attributed to the omnibus
wallet address from the balances attributed to whitelisted addresses in
the information disseminated on the Ethereum blockchain and, if not,
the potential for confusion by investors or other market participants?

     What are commenters' views on the proposed requirement
that end-of-day security token balances must be reported to BSTX each
business day when the securities depository is also open for business,
after such time as the securities depository has completed its end-of-
day settlement process? Do commenters agree with ``BSTX's belie[f] that
the proposed end-of-day security token balance reporting requirement
would be consistent with authority that the Commission has already
approved regarding furnishment of records by members of exchanges''?
\65\ Why or why not? What are commenters' view on how the Exchange will
enforce compliance with the end-of-day ownership reporting requirement
on BSTX Participants?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 56028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What are commenters' views on the Exchange's proposal to
require each BSTX Participant to, either directly or through its
carrying firm, establish a whitelisted wallet address to which its end-
of-day security token ownership balances may be recorded by contacting
BSTX or a Wallet Manager? \66\ What are commenters' views on the
function and activities of the Exchange Wallet Manager and how the
Wallet Manager will assist a BSTX Participant with establishing a
wallet address? What are commenters' views on the standard the Exchange
will use to select a Wallet Manager, the standard that the Wallet
Manager will use to approve or deny applications to establish a wallet
address, Exchange's oversight of the Wallet Manager's activities,
including the Wallet Manager's approval or denial of applications to
establish a wallet address, and the Exchange's rules and procedures to
ensure that a Wallet Manager does not act in an unfair or
discriminatory manner in performing its function?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See id. at 56027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What are commenters' views on whether it would be feasible
for third parties not affiliated with BSTX to serve as a Wallet
Manager? What are commenters' views on the Exchange's representation
that the BSTX Security Token Protocol is based on open source code,
that the Exchange would not require the use of a particular version of
Wallet Manager software, and that anyone would be eligible to serve or
operate as a Wallet Manager provided they are capable of facilitating
effective updates to the Ethereum blockchain to reflect changes in
security token ownership? \67\ What are commenters' views on
competition to be a Wallet Manager and any potential for conflicts of
interest that may arise between or among national securities exchange
and Wallet Managers for trading BSTX-listed security tokens?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See id. at 56055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     While the Exchange proposes that the Exchange and Wallet
Manager will not charge a fee for obtaining a wallet address, what are
commenters' views on the costs that may be incurred because of the end-
of-day security token balance reporting process to investors, issuers,
broker-dealers, including BSTX Participants and non-BSTX Participants,
Wallet Managers, and trading centers, such as national securities
exchanges and alternative trading systems? \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See id. at 56046 n.286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Do commenters agree with the Exchange's assertion that
``[o]wnership of security tokens would be able to be transferred
without regard to the blockchain-based ancillary recordkeeping
functionality''? \69\ Why or why not? What are commenters' views on
whether or not having a security token attributed to a wallet address
could mean that the holder of the wallet address has a shareholder
equity interest in the issuer? What are commenters' views on how
disputes over ownership of security token would be enforced by the
Exchange or any other party?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Id. at 56023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed trading rules include provisions providing
for primary distributions of securities be made through the Exchange,
including using an auction process.\70\ Do commenters agree with the
Exchange's assertion that the proposed method of opening trading in
securities, including with respect to initial security token offerings,
``provides a simple and clear method for opening transactions that is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest''?
\71\ Why are why not? Do commenters understand from the Exchange's
proposal how primary offerings of security tokens could be made through
the Exchange in compliance with the Securities Act, including the
registration and prospective delivery provisions, and the related rules
thereunder? If not, what information would be helpful? Do commenters
understand from the Exchange's proposal how broker-dealers using the
Exchange to engage in primary offerings of securities would be able to
comply with their obligations under the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act, and the respective rules thereunder? If so, please describe how a
broker-dealer could comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See id. at 56035-36.
    \71\ Id. at 56037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange states that ``NSCC already has authority
under its rules, policies and procedures to clear certain trades on a
T+1 or T+0 basis.'' \72\ What are commenters' views on the NSCC process
for clearing security tokens? Do commenters believe that the Exchange
has adequately explained why BSTX Participants may agree to shorter or
longer settlement cycles than T+1,\73\ and the potential effects of
such shorter or longer settlement cycles?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Id. at 56025.
    \73\ See id. at 56024-25, 56039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What are commenters' views on the rules the Exchange is
proposing for short sales of security tokens? Do commenters believe
that the proposed short selling rules are appropriately designed for
the ancillary recordkeeping on the Ethereum blockchain and the T+1
reporting? Why or why not?
    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-2019-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-19 and should be submitted by
February 13, 2020. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by February
27, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01041 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27493-27496]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10960]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0893; FRL-9910-65-Region 4 ]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Georgia; Redesignation of
the Rome, Georgia, 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment
Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a request submitted on June 21, 2012, by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, through Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GA EPD), to redesignate the Rome, Georgia, fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ``Rome Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the
1997 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The Rome Area is comprised of Floyd County in Georgia. EPA's
approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination
that Georgia has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set
forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is also approving a
revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the
1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Rome Area.
Additionally, EPA is approving into the Georgia SIP the motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
PM2.5 for the year 2023 for the Rome Area that are included
as part of Georgia's maintenance plan for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, EPA is approving a determination
that the Area is expected to maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS through the year 2024. EPA is also correcting inadvertent errors
in the proposed rulemaking for this action.

DATES: This rule is effective June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0893. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and

Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joydeb Majumder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Joydeb Majumder may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On June 21, 2012,\1\ the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
through GA EPD, submitted a request to EPA for redesignation of the
Rome Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and
for approval of a Georgia SIP revision containing a maintenance plan
for the Area.\2\ On January 23, 2014, EPA proposed to redesignate the
Rome Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and
to approve, as a revision to the Georgia SIP, the State's 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan and the MVEBs for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for the Rome Area included in that
maintenance plan.\3\ See 79 FR 3757. EPA also proposed to determine
that the Rome Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment can be maintained through
2024. EPA received no adverse comments on the January 23, 2014,
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although EPA received Georgia's request to redesignate the
Rome Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
on June 26, 2012, along with the maintenance plan SIP submission,
the official submittal date for the redesignation request and
maintenance plan is the date of the cover letter, June 21, 2012.
    \2\ EPA designated the Rome Area as nonattainment for the annual
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) as
supplemented on April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844).
    \3\ On January 12, 2012, EPA approved, under section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA, Georgia's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the
Rome Area as part of the SIP revision submitted by GA EPD to provide
for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See
77 FR 1873.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in EPA's January 23, 2014, proposal notice, the 3-year
design value of 13.3 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) for 2009-
2011 meets the PM2.5 Annual NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA
has reviewed the most recent ambient monitoring data, which confirms
that the Rome Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS beyond the 3-year attainment period of 2009-2011.

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving Georgia's redesignation
request to change the legal designation of Floyd County in Georgia from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and as a revision to the Georgia SIP, the State's 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan and the MVEBs for direct
PM2.5 and NOX for the Rome Area included in that
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that
the Rome Area will continue to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS through 2023. EPA's approval of the redesignation request is
based on EPA's determination that the Rome Area meets the criteria for
redesignation set forth in CAA, including EPA's determination that the
Rome Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment can be maintained through
2024. EPA's analyses of Georgia's redesignation request and maintenance
plan are described in detail in the January 23, 2014, proposed rule.
See 79 FR 3757.
    Today, EPA is also clarifying and correcting inadvertent errors
related to Tables 2 and 6 in Section V of EPA's January 23, 2014
proposed rulemaking. In Table 2 of EPA's proposed rule, the 2007 sulfur
dioxide (SO2) point source emissions are presented as 24,275
tons. This was a typographical error. The 2007 SO2 point
source emissions should have been listed as 51,275 tons as presented in
Table 3-2 of Georgia's June 21, 2012 submittal. Additionally, in Table
6 of EPA's proposed rule, the 2007 SO2 emissions are
presented as 25,276.1 tons. This was a typographical error. The 2007
SO2 emissions should have been listed as 52,077 tons as
presented in Table 3-2 of Georgia's June 21, 2012 submittal. EPA has
determined that the corrections to Tables 2 and 6 of EPA's January 23,
2014 proposed rule fall under the ``good cause'' exemption in section
553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act which, upon finding
``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to dispense with public
participation where public notice and comment procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public
notice and comment for these typographical corrections is unnecessary
because EPA's evaluation leading to the January 23, 2014, proposal
considered the correct values reported in Georgia's submittal, and
therefore, the corrections do not change EPA's determination that
Georgia has met the requirements for the Rome Area to be redesignated
to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule, GA EPD notified EPA
that the Georgia Board of Natural Resources had modified Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) entitled ``NOX Emissions from Stationary
Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines used to Generate Electricity'' to
exempt certain engines at data centers from the rule's NOX
limits and had repealed Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb) entitled
``Gasoline Marketing.'' GA EPD adopted Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm)
as a statewide ozone control measure, and the recent amendment exempts
stationary engines at data centers from the rule's NOX
emission limits provided that the engines operate for less than 500
hours per year and only for routine testing and maintenance (limited to
May through September between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m.), when electric power
from a utility is not available, or during internal system failures.
These data centers are equipped with uninterruptable power supplies
(UPSs) that supply electricity during a power outage, and the exempted
engines are designed to provide power only when the UPSs malfunction.
Given the nature of the exempted engines and the conditions necessary
to qualify for the exemption, any emissions increase is likely
negligible. The Gasoline Marketing rule, enacted to improve ozone
levels in the Atlanta Area, required that fuel sold in the Atlanta
ozone nonattainment area and in areas determined to have contributed to
ozone levels in the nonattainment area contain reduced sulfur and have
a reduced Reid Vapor Pressure. This rule applied to fuel sold in the
Rome Area, and the projected mobile source emissions in GA EPD's
maintenance plan assumed continued implementation of the rule through
the maintenance period. GA EPD has subsequently provided calculations
to EPA demonstrating that the repeal of the Gasoline Marketing rule
increases the on-road NOX emissions projected for 2023 in
the Rome Area by approximately 3 tons per year (tpy) and does not
change the projected emissions of SO2 or direct
PM2.5.
    EPA has concluded that the changes to the aforementioned rules do
not affect the Agency's decision to approve the redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the Rome Area. Any increase in emissions that
may result from these

modifications is expected to be minimal and well within the margin
necessary to maintain attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5
standard. As discussed in the proposed rulemaking notice, emissions of
SO2 and NOX in the Rome Area are expected to
decrease by 86 percent (52,077 tpy to 7,194 tpy) and 33 percent (15,475
tpy to 10,336 tpy), respectively between 2007 and 2023.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Rome Area has attained the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and has also determined that all other criteria
for the redesignation of the Rome Area from nonattainment to attainment
of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been met. See CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements is that the Rome Area
has an approved plan demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS over the ten-year period following
redesignation. EPA has determined that attainment can be maintained
through 2024 and is taking final action to approve the maintenance plan
for the Rome Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The detailed rationale for EPA's findings and
actions is set forth in the January 23, 2014 proposed rulemaking. See
79 FR 3757.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of Floyd County for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
modifying the regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.311 to reflect a
designation of attainment for these counties. EPA is also approving, as
a revision to the Georgia SIP, the State's plan for maintaining the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Rome Area. The maintenance
plan includes contingency measures to remedy possible future violations
of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and establishes 2023 MVEBs
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the Rome Area.
Within 24 months of the effective date of EPA's approval of the
maintenance plan, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change
the legal designation of Bibb County and a portion of Monroe County for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is
also approving into the Georgia SIP the 1997 Annual PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Rome Area, which includes the new 2023
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs of 994.4 tpy and 38.0 tpy,
respectively, for this Area. EPA's approval of the redesignation
request is based on the Agency's determination that the Rome Area meets
the criteria for redesignation set forth in CAA, including EPA's
determination that the Rome Area has attained and continues to attain
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment can be
maintained through 2024.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 14, 2014. 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: April 30, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Rome Area'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable           State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approval date        Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance     Floyd County, Rome,         6/21/12  5/14/2014 [Insert    ....................
 Plan for the Rome Area.           Georgia Area.                        citation of
                                                                        publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.311, the table entitled ``Georgia- PM2.5
(Annual NAAQS)'' is amended under ``Rome, GA'' by revising the entry
for ``Floyd County'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.311  Georgia.

* * * * *

                             Georgia--PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Designation \a\
        Designated area        -----------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\               Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Rome, GA:
    Floyd County..............  This action is     Attainment.
                                 effective 5/14/
                                 2014.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-10960 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 82380]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2446-000]

Blue Pilot Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Blue Pilot Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 11, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32840 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64501-64502]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4673-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4673-DR), dated September 29, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 10, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 29, 2022.

    Orange and Osceola Counties for permanent work [Categories C-G]
(already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program). Brevard County for debris removal [Category A] and
permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B], including direct

federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-23154 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42522-42524]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1524]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1524, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard

determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Cochise County, AZ and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
  Project:11-09-0875S Preliminary Dates: February 24, 2014 and February
                                27, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Douglas........................  Department of Public Works, 425
                                          East 10th Street, Douglas, AZ
                                          85607.
Unincorporated Areas of Cochise County.  Cochise County Flood Control
                                          District, 1415 West Melody
                                          Lane, Building F, Bisbee, AZ
                                          85603.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Jackson County, MO and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
         Project:07-07-0023S Preliminary Date: October 10, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Blue Springs...................  City Hall, 903 West Main
                                          Street, Blue Springs, MO
                                          64015.
City of Buckner........................  Municipal Building, 315 South
                                          Hudson Street, Buckner, MO
                                          64016.
City of Grain Valley...................  City Hall, 711 Main Street,
                                          Grain Valley, MO 64029.
City of Grandview......................  City Hall, 1200 Main Street,
                                          Grandview, MO 64030.
City of Greenwood......................  City Hall, 709 West Main
                                          Street, Greenwood, MO 64034.
City of Independence...................  Public Works Department, 111
                                          East Maple Avenue,
                                          Independence, MO 64050.
City of Kansas City....................  City Hall, Planning and
                                          Development, 415 East 12th
                                          Street, 15th Floor, Kansas
                                          City, MO 64106.
City of Lake Lotawana..................  City Hall, 100 Lake Lotawana
                                          Drive, Lake Lotawana, MO
                                          64086.
City of Lake Tapawingo.................  City Hall, 144 Anchor Drive,
                                          Lake Tapawingo, MO 64015.
City of Lee's Summit...................  City Hall, 220 Southeast Green
                                          Street, Lee's Summit, MO
                                          64063.
City of Levasy.........................  City Hall, 103 Pacific Street,
                                          Levasy, MO 64066.
City of Lone Jack......................  City Hall, 207 North Bynum
                                          Road, Lone Jack, MO 64070.
City of Oak Grove......................  City Hall, 1300 South Broadway
                                          Street, Oak Grove, MO 64075.
City of Raytown........................  City Hall, 10000 East 59th
                                          Street, Raytown, MO 64133.
City of Sugar Creek....................  City Hall, 103 South Sterling
                                          Avenue, Sugar Creek, MO 64054.
Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County.  Jackson County Courthouse, 415
                                          East 12th Street, Kansas City,
                                          MO 64106.
Village of River Bend..................  Village Hall, 3923 North
                                          Cobbler Road, River Bend, MO
                                          64058.
Village of Sibley......................  City Hall, 208 Front Street,
                                          Sibley, MO 64088.
Village of Unity.......................  Facilities Building, 1901
                                          Northwest Blue Parkway, Unity,
                                          MO 64065.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-17607 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 19965]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-52-000]

Michigan South Central Power Agency; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 30, 2016, Michigan South Central Power
Agency (MSCPA) filed a notice of cancellation of Original Sheet 1 which
set forth MSCPA's Reactive Support Revenue Requirement for the
provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation
Sources Services to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator from
the Endicott Generating Station, effective June 1, 2016.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2016.

    Dated: March 31, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07854 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 66319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15045-000]

Current Hydro Project 19, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 28, 2020, Current Hydro Project 19, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' New Cumberland Locks and Dam
located on the Ohio River in Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County,
West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed New Cumberland Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project
would consist of the following: (1) A new 250-foot-wide, 170-foot-long
reinforced concrete powerhouse to be located downstream along the left
bank looking downstream; (2) a new 250-foot-wide, 150-foot-long forebay
intake area enclosed by reinforced concrete retaining walls immediately
downstream of the dam; (3) four 5.275-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator
units with a total generating capacity of 21.1 MW; (4) a new 300-foot-
wide by 300-foot-long tailrace; (5) a 1,200-foot-long access road; (6)
a new 60-foot-long by 60-foot-wide substation with a three-phase step-
up transformer; (7) a new 0.3-mile-long, 36.7-kilovolt transmission
line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have
an estimated annual generation of 151 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Joel Herm/Jan Borchert, Current Hydro, LLC, PO
Box 224, Rhinebeck, NY 12572; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. 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 the 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.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search.
Enter the docket number (P-15045) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 13, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23066 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P