[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51410-51414]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92926; File No. SR-BOX-2021-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Related to BOX Exchange LLC and BOX Holdings
Group LLC Ownership Transfer Transactions

September 9, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August

27, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to update its ownership schedule and
accomplish the following ownership transfer transactions, resulting in
changes to the ownership of the Exchange and BOX Holdings Group LLC, an
affiliate of the Exchange (``BOX Holdings''): (i) The Exchange proposes
to repurchase the ownership interests in the Exchange held by Citigroup
Financial Products Inc. (``Citi'') and CSFB Next Fund Inc. (``CSFB'');
(ii) BOX Holdings proposes to repurchase the ownership interests in BOX
Holdings held by Citi and CSFB; and (iii) Wolverine Holdings, L.P.
(``Wolverine'') proposes to purchase an ownership interest in the
Exchange from MX US 2, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TMX Group
Limited (``MXUS2''). 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 website at http://boxoptions.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 Exchange is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. The Exchange's
charter is a Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement, dated as of May 29, 2020, as amended November 30, 2020 (the
``Exchange LLC Agreement''). Each of Citi, CSFB and MXUS2 became a
Member \3\ of the Exchange on May 10, 2012. Wolverine is not currently
a Member of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Member'' of the Exchange means the current owners of
Economic Units and Voting Units of the Exchange and will include any
person subsequently admitted to the Exchange as an additional or
substitute Member of the Exchange. See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.
1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX Holdings is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. BOX Holdings is the
sole owner of BOX Options Market LLC, a facility of the Exchange (``BOX
Options''). The BOX Holdings charter is a Second Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of September 13, 2018
(the ``Holdings LLC Agreement''). Each of Citi and CSFB became a Member
\4\ of BOX Holdings on May 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Member'' of BOX Holdings means the current owners of
Units of BOX Holdings and will include any Person subsequently
admitted to BOX Holdings as an additional or substitute Member of
BOX Holdings. See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1. Current Members
of BOX Holdings are: MXUS2, IB Exchange Corp., Citadel Securities
Principal Investments LLC; Citigroup Financial Products Inc., UBS
Americas Inc., CSFB Next Fund Inc., JPMC Strategic Investments I
Corporation, Wolverine and Aragon Solutions Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6,445 Economic Units \5\ and 8,388 Voting Units \6\ represent
Citi's interest in the Exchange, comprising 7.683% of all outstanding
Economic Units and 9.999% of all outstanding Voting Units of the
Exchange, respectively (the ``Citi Exchange Units''). 1,155 Class A
Units \7\ and 25 Class B Units \8\ represent Citi's interest in BOX
Holdings, comprising 7.853% of all outstanding Class A Units and Class
B Units (collectively, ``Units'') of BOX Holdings (the ``Citi Holdings
Units'' and, together with the Citi Exchange Units, the ``Citi
Units''). Citi's voting power with respect to votes of Members of BOX
Holdings is 8.13% and Citi's voting power on the Board of Directors of
BOX Holdings is 8.38%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Economic Units'' of the Exchange means equal units of
limited liability company interest in the Exchange collectively
comprising all interests in the profits and losses of the Exchange
and all rights to receive distributions from the Exchange as set
forth in the Exchange LLC Agreement. See Exchange LLC Agreement
Sec.  2.5(a).
    \6\ ``Voting Units'' of the Exchange means equal units of
limited liability company interest in the Exchange collectively
comprising all voting interests of Members with respect to Exchange
matters. See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.  2.5(b).
    \7\ ``Class A Units'' of BOX Holdings means equal units of
limited liability company interest in BOX Holdings, including an
interest in the ownership and profits and losses of BOX Holdings and
the right to receive distributions from BOX Holdings. See Holdings
LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1.
    \8\ ``Class B Units'' of BOX Holdings are identical to Class A
Units except Class B Units include conversion rights, a liquidation
preference and class voting rights with respect to those matters.
See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec. Sec.  1.1 and 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6,123 Economic Units and 8,388 Voting Units represent CSFB's
interest in the Exchange, comprising 7.299% of all outstanding Economic
Units and 9.999% of all outstanding Voting Units of the Exchange,
respectively (the ``CSFB Exchange Units''). 475 Class A Units represent
CSFB's interest in BOX Holdings, comprising 3.161% of all outstanding
Units of BOX Holdings (the ``CSFB Holdings Units'' and, together with
the CSFB Exchange Units, the ``CSFB Units''). CSFB's voting power with
respect to votes of Members of BOX Holdings is 3.27% and CSFB's voting
power on the Board of Directors of BOX Holdings is 3.37%.
    33,554 Economic Units and 16,777 Voting Units represent MXUS2's
interest in the Exchange, comprising 40% of all outstanding Economic
Units and 20% of all outstanding Voting Units of the Exchange,
respectively. Wolverine currently does not hold any interest in the
Exchange.
    The Exchange has agreed with Citi to purchase the Citi Exchange
Units. BOX Holdings has agreed with Citi to purchase the Citi Holdings
Units. Accordingly, it is proposed that Citi transfer all of the Citi
Exchange Units to the Exchange and all of the Citi Holdings Units to
BOX Holdings (the ``Citi Transfer'').
    The Exchange has agreed with CSFB to purchase the CSFB Exchange
Units. BOX Holdings has agreed with CSFB to purchase the CSFB Holdings
Units. Accordingly, it is proposed that CSFB transfer all of the CSFB
Exchange Units to the Exchange and all of the CSFB Holdings Units to
BOX Holdings (the ``CSFB Transfer'').
    Wolverine has agreed with MXUS2 to purchase one (1) Economic Unit
in the Exchange from MXUS2. Accordingly, it is proposed that MXUS2
transfer one (1) Economic Unit to Wolverine (the ``Wolverine Transfer''
and, together with the Citi Transfer and the CSFB Transfer, the
``Transfers''). Wolverine is an existing Exchange Facility
Participant.\9\ At the time of the Wolverine Transfer, Wolverine will
become a Member of the Exchange. As a holder of one (1) Economic Unit
in the Exchange, Wolverine will also be allocated 2,637 Voting Units as
provided in the

Exchange LLC Agreement,\10\ comprising 0.002% of all outstanding
Economic Units and 5.026% of all outstanding Voting Units of the
Exchange, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Exchange Facility Participant'' means a firm or
organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to the
Exchange Rules for purposes of participating in trading on any
Exchange Facility. See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1.
    \10\ As discussed below, Sec.  7.3(g) of the Exchange LLC
Agreement provides that a Member of the Exchange may hold a
different number of Voting Units than Economic Units due to the
application of Voting Ownership Limits to other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Exchange LLC Agreement, Wolverine will not become a
Member of the Exchange unless Wolverine is first accepted and approved
as a transferee \11\ and admitted as a Member by the affirmative vote
of Members holding a majority of the Voting Percentage Interest,\12\
Wolverine executes a counterpart of the Exchange LLC Agreement and
agrees in writing to assume the obligations of a Member under the
Exchange LLC Agreement, and the Board determines the Wolverine Transfer
is permitted by the Exchange LLC Agreement.\13\ Attached [sic] as
Exhibit 5A is a form of Instrument of Accession to be executed by
Wolverine prior to closing of the Wolverine Transfer to comply with the
foregoing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To be eligible for such approval, the proposed transferee
must (x) be of high professional and financial standing, (y) be able
to carry out its duties as a Member hereunder, if admitted as such,
and (z) be under no regulatory or governmental bar or
disqualification. See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.  7.1(a).
    \12\ ``Voting Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member
means the ratio of the number of Voting Units held by the Member,
directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, to the total of
all of the issued and outstanding Voting Units held by Members,
expressed as a percentage. Voting Units held by a Member that are
ineligible to vote shall not be counted in the numerator or the
denominator when determining such ratio. See Exchange LLC Agreement
Sec.  1.1.
    \13\ See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.  7.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Citi Transfer, the Citi Units will no longer be
outstanding and Citi will have no remaining rights under the Exchange
LLC Agreement or the Holdings LLC Agreement. After the CSFB Transfer,
the CSFB Units will no longer be outstanding and CSFB will have no
remaining rights under the Exchange LLC Agreement or the Holdings LLC
Agreement. In connection with the Transfers, the Exchange proposes to
amend Schedule A to the Exchange LLC Agreement, in the form of Exhibit
5B to this filing, to reflect the changes in Exchange ownership. No
amendment of the Holdings LLC Agreement is proposed.
    As provided in Section 7.3(f) of the Exchange LLC Agreement, ``no
Person, alone or together with any Related Persons, shall own, directly
or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an aggregate Economic
Percentage Interest \14\ greater than 40% (or 20% if such Person is an
Exchange Facility Participant) (the ``Economic Ownership Limit'') . . .
.'' Accordingly, because the total number of outstanding Economic Units
of the Exchange are reduced in the Transfers, outstanding Economic
Units held by any remaining Members of the Exchange will be cancelled
to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the Economic
Ownership Limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Economic Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member
means the ratio of the number of Economic Units held by the Member,
directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, to the total of
all of the issued and outstanding Economic Units held by Members,
expressed as a percentage. See Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in Section 7.3(g) of the Exchange LLC Agreement, ``no
Person, alone or together with any Related Persons, shall own, directly
or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an aggregate Voting
Percentage Interest of greater than 20% (the ``Voting Ownership
Limit'') . . . .'' \15\ Further, Section 7.3(g) of the Exchange LLC
Agreement provides that, upon any change in economic ownership, the
number of Voting Units held by each Member of the Exchange shall
automatically adjust to maintain compliance with the Voting Ownership
Limit. Accordingly, because the number of Economic Units held by
Members of the Exchange are reduced by the Transfers, the number of
outstanding Voting Units of the Exchange will be reduced accordingly
and the number of Voting Units held by each of the remaining Members of
the Exchange, including Wolverine, will be adjusted to the extent
necessary to ensure compliance with the Voting Ownership Limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Any Member may voluntarily set a lower Voting Ownership
Limit for itself at its own discretion. See Exchange LLC Agreement
Sec.  7.3(g)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, all ownership limits relating to the Exchange
will continue to be strictly respected. The Transfer will not result in
any Member of the Exchange exceeding its applicable Economic Ownership
Limit or Voting Ownership Limit (collectively, its ``Ownership
Limits''). Prior to the Transfers, some Members of the Exchange already
held the maximum ownership percentages allowed under the Exchange LLC
Agreement. The ownership percentages held by these Members will remain
below the applicable Ownership Limits after giving effect to the
Transfers. For other Members of the Exchange, adjustments to ownership
percentages resulting from the Transfer will be made to comply with all
Ownership Limits.\16\ After giving effect to the Transfers, no Member
will hold more than 40% Economic Percentage Interest, no Exchange
Facility Participant will hold more than 20% Economic Percentage
Interest, and no Member will hold more than 20% Voting Percentage
Interest in the Exchange. Upon the closing of the Transfers, each of
MXUS2 and IB Exchange Corp. (``IB'') would hold the maximum number of
Economic Units permitted under its applicable Economic Ownership Limit
and each Member of the Exchange except Wolverine would hold the maximum
number of Voting Units permitted under its applicable Voting Ownership
Limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Any Economic Units held by a Member in excess of its
Economic Ownership Limit are cancelled because the existence of such
Units is not permitted by the Exchange LLC Agreement. The number and
allocation of Voting Units automatically adjust upon any change in
ownership of Economic Units pursuant to Exchange LLC Agreement Sec.
7.3(g)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The composition of the Board of Directors of the Exchange will
remain unaffected by the Transfer. The makeup of the Board will still
be comprised of at least 20% of Directors who are Participant
Directors,\17\ a majority of Directors who are Non-industry
Directors,\18\ and one (1) Director who is also an officer or director
of BOX Holdings, if BOX Holdings chooses to exercise its right to
appoint such a director.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Participant Director'' means a Director of the Exchange
who is an officer, director or employee of an Exchange Facility
Participant. See BOX Exchange LLC Bylaws Sec.  1.01.
    \18\ ``Non-industry Director'' means a Director of the Exchange
who (i) has no material business relationship with the Exchange or
any Affiliate of the Exchange, or any Exchange Facility Participant
or any Affiliate of any Exchange Facility Participant and is not
associated with any broker or dealer as required pursuant to Section
6(b)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or (ii)
is not an Industry Representative. ``Industry Representative'' means
an individual who is an officer, director or employee of a broker or
dealer or who has been employed in any such capacity at any time
within the prior three (3) years, as well as an individual who has,
or has had, a consulting or employment relationship with the
Exchange, or any Affiliate of the Exchange, at any time within the
prior three (3) years. See BOX Exchange LLC Bylaws Sec.  1.01.
    \19\ See BOX Exchange LLC Bylaws Sec.  4.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7.4(e) of the Holdings LLC Agreement provides that BOX
Holdings shall provide the SEC with written notice ten (10) days prior
to the closing date of any acquisition that results in a Member's
Percentage Interest \20\ meeting or crossing the threshold level of 5%
or

the successive levels of 10% and 15%. Although Citadel Securities
Principal Investments LLC (``Citadel'') is not acquiring any additional
Units of BOX Holdings in the Transfers, the reduction of the total
number of outstanding Units of BOX Holdings in connection with the
Transfers will result in a corresponding increase in the Percentage
Interest held by Citadel from 13.80% to 15.50% and thereby crossing the
15% level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member of BOX
Holdings means the ratio of the number of Units held by the Member
to the total of all of the issued Units, expressed as a percentage
and determined with respect to each class of Units, whenever
applicable. See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change in Citadel's Percentage Interest resulting from the
Transfers will also increase the voting power of Citadel in BOX
Holdings. After giving effect to the Transfers, Citadel's voting power
with respect to votes of Members of BOX Holdings will increase from
14.28% to 16.65% and Citadel's total voting power on the Board of
Directors of BOX Holdings will increase from 14.73% to 16.65%. Citadel
currently has the power to appoint one (1) representative to the BOX
Holdings Board of Directors \21\ and, after giving effect to the
Transfers, Citadel will have the power to appoint two (2) Directors of
BOX Holdings.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  4.1(a)(i).
    \22\ See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  4.1(a)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 7.4(f) of the Holdings LLC Agreement provides that a rule
filing pursuant to Section 19 of the Exchange Act is required with
respect to certain transactions that result in the acquisition and
holding by a person of an aggregate Percentage Interest in BOX Holdings
which meets or crosses the threshold level of 20% or any successive 5%
level. Although MXUS2 is not acquiring any additional Units of BOX
Holdings in connection with the Transfers, the reduction of the total
number of outstanding Units of BOX Holdings in connection with the
Transfers will result in a corresponding increase in the Percentage
Interest held by MXUS2 from 42.62% to 47.89% and thereby crossing the
45% level. Although IB is not acquiring any additional Units of BOX
Holdings in connection with the Transfers, the reduction of the total
number of outstanding Units of BOX Holdings in connection with the
Transfers will result in a corresponding increase in the Percentage
Interest held by IB from 22.69% to 25.50% and thereby crossing the 25%
level.
    The change in IB's ownership percentage of Holdings resulting from
the Transfers will not affect IB's voting percentage because, as an
Exchange Facility Participant on BOX Options, IB's allowable voting
percentage is limited to 20%, as provided by the Holdings LLC Agreement
\23\ and will remain at 19.999%. As a result of this limitation of IB's
voting percentage, the changes resulting from the Transfers will also
increase the voting power of MXUS2 in BOX Holdings as IB's voting power
above 19.999% will be reallocated among other Members of BOX Holdings.
After giving effect to the Transfers, MXUS2's voting power with respect
to votes of Members of BOX Holdings will increase from 44.10% to 51.43%
and MXUS2's total voting power on the Board of Directors of BOX
Holdings will increase from 45.50% to 51.43%, providing MXUS2 the
ability to control votes of the Board of Directors of BOX Holdings that
require a simple majority vote. MXUS2 currently has the power to
appoint three (3) representatives to the BOX Holdings Board of
Directors \24\ and, after giving effect to the Transfers, MXUS2 will
still have the power to appoint the same number of Directors of BOX
Holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  7.4(h).
    \24\ See Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  4.1(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No other Member of BOX Holdings will have its ownership percentage
in BOX Holdings adjusted by more than 1% of the total BOX Holdings
ownership as a result of the Transfers.
    Section 7.3(e) of the Exchange LLC Agreement provides that the
Exchange shall provide the SEC with written notice ten (10) days prior
to the closing date of any acquisition that would result in a Member
having a Voting Percentage Interest of five percent (5%) or more.
Although Wolverine proposes to acquire only one (1) Exchange Economic
Unit of the Exchange, the allocation of Exchange Voting Units resulting
from the Transfers would result in Wolverine holding 2,637 Exchange
Voting Units, representing a 5.03% Voting Percentage Interest and
thereby crossing the 5% level.
    As discussed above, all Exchange owners are subject to a Voting
Ownership Limit of 20%. Although Aragon Solutions Ltd. (``Aragon'') is
not acquiring any additional Economic Units of the Exchange in the
Transfers, the reallocation of Exchange Voting Units resulting from the
Transfers would result in Aragon holding 10,493 Exchange Voting Units,
representing 19.999% Voting Percentage Interest, compared with 6.294%
prior to the Transfers.
    No other Member of the Exchange will have its Economic Percentage
Interest or its Voting Percentage Interest in the Exchange adjusted by
more than 5% of the total BOX Holdings ownership as a result of the
Transfers.
    The consideration paid to Citi and CSFB by the Exchange will not
materially affect the Exchange's capitalization. After payment by the
Exchange of the purchase price to each of Citi and CSFB, the Exchange
will continue to reserve sufficient assets to operate and fulfill its
regulatory responsibilities with respect to itself and BOX Options. The
Exchange Board of Directors remains committed to ensuring the Exchange
is sufficiently capitalized to meet its obligations. The Exchange and
BOX Options continue to be subject to a written Facility Agreement,
which provides that the Exchange receives and retains all assets deemed
to be necessary for regulatory purposes by the Exchange.\25\
Accordingly, payments made to consummate the Transfers will not have a
material effect on the Exchange's ability to carry out its duties and
obligations as an SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66871 (April 27,
2012) 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (Order granting approval of BOX
Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LabMorgan Corp., a Member of the Exchange, notified the Exchange it
has changed its legal name to JPMC Strategic Investments I Corporation.
The updated name of this Member is reflected in the amendment to the
Exchange LLC Agreement attached [sic] hereto as Exhibit 5B.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\26\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(1),\27\ in particular, in that it
enables the Exchange to be so organized so as to have the capacity to
be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to
enforce compliance by its exchange members and persons associated with
its exchange members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed name change and changes in
ownership are necessary to accommodate the desires of certain Members
to arrange their affairs, including to exit ownership of the Exchange
and BOX Holdings. The Exchange believes that this filing furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the proposed rule
change would be consistent with and facilitate a governance and
regulatory structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged

in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the proposed ownership changes will ensure the
continued operation of both the Exchange and BOX Holdings without any
detrimental effect on the operations of either the Exchange or its
facility.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed name change and
ownership changes are consistent with, and will not interfere with, the
self-regulatory obligations of BOX Exchange. The Exchange importantly
notes that it is not proposing to amend any of the provisions within
the Holdings LLC Agreement or the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement dealing
with the availability or protection of information, books and records,
undue influence, conflicts of interest, unfair control by an affiliate,
and regulatory independence of BOX Exchange.\28\ In addition, the
ownership changes proposed by the Exchange in this filing are
consistent with past ownership and voting levels held by Members of BOX
Holdings, MXUS2 has previously held voting power in BOX Holdings in
excess of 50% \29\ and IB has previously held a Percentage Interest in
BOX Holdings greater than 25%.\30\ The ability of the Exchange to
operate and fulfill its regulatory responsibilities will continue
unaffected by this proposal and the Exchange will continue to be able
to serve its independent regulatory functions as an SRO after the
proposed transactions are consummated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66871 (April 27,
2012) 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (Order granting approval of BOX
Exchange).
    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74477 (March 11,
2015), 80 FR 13932 (March 17, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-14).
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74403 (March 18,
2016), 81 FR 15772 (March 24, 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \31\ in that it is designed to facilitate
transactions in securities, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes these objectives are supported by having active,
interested owners of the Exchange. The Exchange further believes
accommodating the transfer of ownership interests in the Exchange and
its facility between willing buyers and sellers ensures the health and
vitality of the Exchange and encourages robust interest in the
Exchange's operations, which promotes effective, efficient markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 because the changes proposed are
limited to ownership of the Exchange and an affiliate of a facility of
the Exchange and do not change the operation of the Exchange or any
facility of the Exchange. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any competitive issue or have any impact on competition; rather
the proposed rule change lays out the transfer ownership interests.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2021-19 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-2021-19. 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-2021-19, and should be submitted on
or before October 6, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19864 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1371-1372]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Brown LLC............................  EG23-1-000
Pleasant Hill Solar, LLC.................  EG23-2-000
Watlington Solar, LLC....................  EG23-4-000
Baron Winds LLC..........................  EG23-5-000
Buena Vista Energy Center, LLC...........  EG23-6-000
EnerSmart Imperial Beach BESS LLC........  EG23-7-000

EnerSmart Mesa Heights BESS LLC..........  EG23-8-000
FGE Goodnight I LLC......................  EG23-9-000
AL Solar D, LLC..........................  EG23-10-000
Resurgence Solar I, LLC..................  EG23-11-000
Resurgence Solar II, LLC.................  EG23-12-000
West Line Solar, LLC.....................  EG23-13-000
Daggett Solar Power 1 LLC................  EG23-14-000
Daggett Solar Power 2 LLC................  EG23-15-000
CED Timberland Solar, LLC................  EG23-16-000
Daggett Solar Power 3 LLC................  EG23-17-000
Old Gold Energy Center, LLC..............  EG23-18-000
Arroyo Solar LLC.........................  EG23-19-000
Arroyo Energy Storage LLC................  EG23-20-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December 2022, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2021).

    Dated: January 4, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00256 Filed 1-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35903-35906]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0432]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Emerald Isle, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Emerald Isle,
North Carolina. The safety zone would temporarily restrict vessel
movement. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
mariners on navigable waters during maintenance of the NC 58 Fixed
Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at
Emerald Isle, North Carolina.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO3 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0432) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2 \by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0432) 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.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    North Carolina Department of Transportation has contracted Marine
Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge
maintenance on the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The
contract provides for replacement of the fender system to commence on
September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The
contractor will utilize a 140 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a
work platform and for equipment staging. This safety zone is necessary
to provide a safety buffer for transiting vessels as bridge repairs
present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction of
horizontal clearance. During this period the Coast Guard believes it is
necessary to require a one hour notification to the work supervisor at
NC 58 Fixed Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway crossing, mile 226,
Emerald Isle, North Carolina. The notification requirement would apply
during the maintenance period for vessels requiring a horizontal
clearance of greater than 50 feet.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed temporary safety zone will encompass the waters
directly under the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina
(34[deg]40'28'' N, 077[deg]03'56'' W). All vessels transiting this
section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater
than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification
to the work supervisor at the NC 58 Fixed Bridge while the safety zone
is in effect. This zone will be in effect from 8 a.m. September 12,
2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 2012.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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, and

does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under
section 6(a)(3) of Executive 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 does not restrict traffic
from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; it
imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of
impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance
of greater than 50 feet.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of
commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing
vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway from 8 a.m. September 12, 2012 through 8 p.m.
December 12, 2012.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone will apply to this section of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage
by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available
to the users of the waterway. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a 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 proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental
analysis

checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

 List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0432 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0432  Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Emerald Isle, NC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone
includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the NC
58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226,
at Emerald Isle, North Carolina (latitude 34[deg]40'28'' N, longitude
077[deg]03'56'' W).
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0432. In addition the following regulations apply:
    (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone,
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port North
Carolina.
    (2) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance
to safely transit through the NC 58 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 226, at Emerald Isle, North Carolina must
contact the work supervisor on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and
16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the
zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port North
Carolina or his designated representative by telephone at (910) 343-
3882 or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16.
    (4) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
    (5) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity
of this safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (c) Definitions.
    (1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the Commander, Coast
Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act
on his behalf.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal,
State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
September 12, 2012 through 8 p.m. December 12, 2012 unless cancelled
earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2012-14643 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62446-62447]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newport, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Newport, NH, to
accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Parlin Field
Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management
of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Parlin Field Airport, Newport,
NH.

History

    On August 14, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Parlin Field
Airport, Newport, NH, (80 FR 48766). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 12.1-mile radius of Parlin Field Airport,
Newport, NH, providing the controlled airspace required to support the
new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Parlin Field
Airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71 --DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE NH E5 Newport, NH [New]

Parlin Field Airport, NH
    (Lat. 43[deg]23'14'' N., long. 72[deg]11'16'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 12.1-mile radius of Parlin Field Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 2, 2015.
Gerald E. Lynch,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-25900 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64077-64078]
[DOCID:fr07de09-893]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9089-6]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby
given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by
WildEarth Guardians in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado: WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, No. 09-cv-02109-
MSK-KLM (D. CO.). On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint
alleging: (a) That EPA failed to perform a mandatory duty under section
110(k)(5) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), to require the State of
Utah to revise the State Implementation Plan regarding Utah Regulation
307-107-1 through 307-107-5 (``the Utah breakdown provision''),
relating to excess emissions resulting from the breakdown of pollution
control equipment, and (b) that EPA failed to timely respond to a
petition from WildEarth Guardians requesting EPA to require Utah to
revise the Utah breakdown provision consistent with CAA section
110(k)(5). The proposed consent decree establishes a deadline for EPA
to take final action either issuing a rule under section 110(k)(5)
requiring Utah to revise the Utah breakdown provision or determining
that a revision is unnecessary.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by January 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0896, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption,

and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Tierney, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking to
compel action by the Administrator to take final action under section
110(k) of the CAA on the Utah SIP Breakdown provision. The proposed
consent decree requires EPA to sign for publication in the Federal
Register no later than February 28, 2011 a notice of the Agency's final
action determining whether the Utah Breakdown provision (Utah
Regulations 307-107-1 through 307-107-5) renders the Utah SIP
``substantially inadequate'' within the meaning of section 110(k)(5) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), and if EPA determines that the SIP is
substantially inadequate, requiring the State to revise the SIP as it
relates to the Utah breakdown provision. If EPA fulfills its
obligations, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss this suit with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to
this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0896) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: November 25, 2009.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-29079 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39561-39564]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14099]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0210; FRL 10010-87-OAR]

Determinations of Light-Duty Vehicle Alternative Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Small Volume Manufacturers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
determinations of light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
alternative standards for four small volume manufacturers: Aston
Martin, Ferrari, Lotus and McLaren. The alternative standards in these
determinations cover model years 2017-2021 and are established pursuant
to small volume manufacturer provisions in EPA's light-duty vehicle
greenhouse gas regulations.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0210. 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., 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 electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lieske, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0210. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31,
2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center
staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. For further information on EPA Docket Center
services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

B. Electronic Access

    You may access this Federal Register document electronically from
the Government Printing Office under the ``Federal Register'' listings
at FDSys. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

II. Background

    The EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program for model
years (MYs) 2012-2016 provided a conditional exemption for small volume
manufacturers (SVMs) with annual U.S. sales of less than 5,000 vehicles
due to unique feasibility issues faced by these SVMs.\1\ The exemption
was conditioned on the manufacturer making a good faith effort to
obtain credits from larger volume manufacturers. For the MY 2017-2025
light-duty vehicle GHG program, EPA proposed, took public comment on,
and in 2012 finalized specific regulations allowing SVMs to petition
EPA for alternative standards, again recognizing that the primary
program standards may not be feasible for SVMs and could drive these
manufacturers from the U.S. market.\2\ EPA acknowledged in the 2012
final rule that SVMs may face a greater challenge in meeting
CO2 standards compared to large manufacturers because they
only produce a few vehicle models, mostly focused on high performance
sports cars and luxury vehicles. SVMs have limited product lines across
which to average emissions, and the few vehicles they produce often
have very high CO2 levels on a per vehicle basis. EPA also
noted that the total U.S. annual vehicle sales of SVMs are much less
than 1 percent of total sales of all manufacturers and contribute
minimally to total vehicular GHG emissions, and foregone GHG reductions
from SVMs likewise are a small percentage of total industry-wide
reductions. EPA received only supportive public comments on allowing
alternative standards for SVMs, including from SVMs, their trade
associations, and dealers.\3\ EPA adopted a regulatory pathway for SVMs
to apply for alternative GHG emissions standards for MYs 2017 and
later, based on information provided by each SVM on factors such as
technical feasibility, cost, and lead time. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 25419-25421, May 7, 2010.
    \2\ 77 FR 62789-62795, October 15, 2012.
    \3\ Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799
    \4\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations established in the 2012 rule outline eligibility
criteria and a framework for establishing SVM alternative standards.
Manufacturer average annual U.S. sales must remain below 5,000 vehicles
to be eligible for SVM alternative standards.\5\ The regulations
specify the requirements for supporting technical data and information
that a manufacturer must submit to EPA as part of its application.\6\
The regulations specify that an SVM applying for an alternative
standard provide the following technical information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(1).
    \6\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The CO2 reduction technologies employed by the
manufacturer on each vehicle model, or projected to be employed,
including information regarding the cost and CO2-reducing
effectiveness. Include technologies that improve air conditioning
efficiency and reduce air conditioning system leakage, and any ``off-
cycle'' technologies that potentially provide benefits outside the
operation represented by the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET).
     An evaluation of comparable models from other
manufacturers, including CO2 results and air conditioning
credits generated by the models.
     A discussion of the CO2-reducing technologies
employed on vehicles offered outside of the U.S. market but not
available in the U.S., including a discussion as to why those vehicles
and/or technologies are not being used to achieve CO2
reductions for vehicles in the U.S. market.
     An evaluation, at a minimum, of the technologies projected
by the EPA in a final rulemaking as those technologies likely to be
used to meet greenhouse gas emission standards and the extent to which
those technologies are employed or projected to be employed by the
manufacturer.
     The most stringent CO2 level estimated to be
feasible for each model, in each model year, and the technological
basis for this estimate.
     For each model year, a projection of the lowest feasible
sales-weighted fleet

average CO2 value, separately for passenger automobiles and
light trucks, and an explanation demonstrating that these projections
are reasonable.
     A copy of any application, data, and related information
submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
in support of a request for alternative Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards filed under 49 CFR part 525.
    SVMs may apply for alternative standards for up to five model years
at a time. The GHG standards that EPA establishes for MY 2017 may
optionally be met by the manufacturers in MYs 2015-2016.\7\ SVMs may
use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions to meet the
alternative standards, but may not trade credits to another
manufacturer.\8\ The process for approving an SVM application includes
a public comment period of 30 days after which EPA will issue a final
determination establishing alternative standards for the manufacturer,
as appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g). Manufacturers may opt to comply
with their MY 2017 standard in MYs 2015 and 2016 retroactively in
lieu of the Temporary Leadtime Alternative Allowance Standards used
in these model years.
    \8\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(6).
    \9\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SVMs applied for alternative standards due to continued concern
regarding their abilities to meet the primary program GHG standards.
Given that the current production MY for manufacturers is 2020, with MY
2021 starting soon, these alternative standards will provide immediate
relief for SVMs as authorized under the regulation. The GHG program
also allows for a 3-year carry-back provision, which is within the
timeframe of this notice and the MYs under consideration.
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), governing the
establishment of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards,
contains separate small volume manufacturer alternative standards
provisions that are administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) independent of EPA's SVM alternative standards
provisions.\10\ Under EPCA's CAFE provisions, SVMs meeting the CAFE
eligibility criteria may petition NHTSA for less stringent alternative
CAFE standards. Manufacturers generally are also able to pay fines in
lieu of meeting the CAFE standards, which is not an option in EPA's GHG
program under the Clean Air Act. While eligible SVMs may apply for
alternative standards under the CAFE program, and some of the SVMs
covered by this decision document have applied for alternative CAFE
standards, as of May 4, 2020, none of those SVMs have been granted
alternative CAFE standards for MYs 2017-2021.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(d). Implementing regulations may be found
in 49 CFR part 525. EISA limits eligibility to manufacturers with
worldwide production of fewer than 10,000 passenger cars.
    \11\ See https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/CAFE_PIC_Mfr_LIVE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Manufacturer Requested GHG Standards

    The EPA received applications for SVM alternative standards from
four manufacturers: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus and McLaren.\12\ Each
manufacturer provided an application to EPA that contained confidential
business information (CBI). Each manufacturer also provided a public
version of its application with the CBI removed, which EPA placed in
the public docket established for this proceeding. As part of their
applications, the SVMs requested specific alternative GHG standards for
five model years starting with MY 2017 based on their unique projected
product mix. Table 1 below provides the standards requested by the
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Ferrari was previously owned by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
(FCA) and petitioned EPA for operationally independent status under
40 CFR 86.1838-01(d). In a separate decision EPA granted this status
to Ferrari starting with the 2012 model year, allowing Ferrari to be
treated as an SVM under EPA's GHG program. Ferrari has since become
an independent company and is no longer owned by FCA.

                             Table 1--Manufacturer Requested GHG Standards (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer               MY 2017 *        MY 2018         MY 2019         MY 2020         MY 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aston Martin....................             431             396             380             374             376
Ferrari.........................             421             408             395             386             377
Lotus...........................             361             361             344             341             308
McLaren.........................             372             372             368             360             334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Manufacturers may optionally meet MY 2017 standards in MYs 2015-2016 (40 CFR 86.1818-12(g).

    In November 2017, subsequent to submitting a request for SVM
alternative standards, Lotus was acquired by Zhejiang Geely Holding
Group (Geely) which also owns Volvo Car Company. Under the SVM
regulations regarding eligibility,\13\ Lotus remains eligible for
alternative standards for MY 2017. However, it is possible that Lotus
will no longer be eligible for SVM standards starting in MY 2018 as
Lotus may exceed the 5,000 vehicles eligibility threshold under the
aggregation provisions of the regulations, based upon sales volume
figures and other information provided by the manufacturer. While EPA
is establishing alternative standards for Lotus through MY 2021, in
order to use the alternative standards for MYs 2018-2021 Lotus would
need to either demonstrate that they remain eligible for SVM
alternative standards under the aggregation provisions or apply and be
granted operational independence status.\14\ EPA is not including any
determination of SVM eligibility for Lotus for MY 2018 and beyond in
this SVM alternative standards determination notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 86.1818-12(g)(1)(i).
    \14\ 40 CFR 86.1838-01(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations require SVMs to submit information, including cost
information, to EPA as part of their applications, as detailed above.
Each SVM provided its technical basis for the requested standards
including a discussion of technologies that could and could not be
feasibly applied to their vehicles in the time frame of the standards.
As noted above, the non-CBI information provided by the SVMs is
included in the docket for this proceeding. However, much of the data
and information provided by the manufacturers regarding future vehicles
and technology projections is claimed as CBI and not included in the
public versions of the applications.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For more information about how EPA addresses claims of
Confidential Business Information, see 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA Determinations of SVM Alternative Standards

    On July 31, 2019, EPA issued proposed determinations of SVM
alternative standards, including background information and EPA's

assessment of the proposed standards, and requested public comment.\16\
As discussed below, EPA is finalizing the SVM alternative standard
determinations as proposed. EPA received only supportive comments
concerning the proposed alternative standards and no commenter
suggested any adjustment to the proposed standard levels. EPA has also
placed a Response to Comments document in the docket for this
proceeding.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 84 FR 37277.
    \17\ ``Determinations of Light-duty Vehicle Alternative
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Small Volume Manufacturers:
Response to Comments,'' EPA-420-R-20-009, June 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first four model years of the program, MYs 2017-2020, EPA
proposed and is adopting the alternative standards requested by the
SVMs. These model years are completed or underway and therefore lead-
time is a primary consideration. Based on the lack of lead-time
available for these model years and EPA's review of the manufacturers'
submissions and assessment of the capability of each product and its
associated technology adoption, EPA believes this approach is
appropriate for MYs 2017-2020.
    For MY 2021, EPA considered the levels requested by the
manufacturers and compared them to levels each SVM would achieve under
an approach where the manufacturers achieved year-over-year reductions
from their MY 2017 baseline through MY 2021, analogous to the overall
declining fleetwide standards in the primary program. The primary
program standards for passenger cars are equivalent to approximately
five percent year-over-year improvements. Although the regulations do
not mandate a specific year-over-year percent reduction for SVMs, EPA
considered an approach based on a minimum level of steady improvement
of three percent year-over-year emissions reduction from each SVM's
baseline CO2 levels. This pace of change is not as
aggressive as the annual improvement in the passenger car standards in
the primary program for these model years, but EPA believes it
represents a reasonable minimum pace of meaningful improvements for
SVMs under the SVM alternative standards regulatory provisions, given
the SVMs' limited product lines and limited ability to average among
high and low emitting vehicle models. Historically, EPA has set
standards designed to reduce emissions while providing vehicle
manufacturers compliance flexibility through averaging. Table 2 below
provides the projected CO2 levels for each manufacturer
based on three percent annual improvements, using MY 2017 as the
baseline or starting model year.

                    Table 2--Three Percent Annual Improvement from MY 2017 Baseline (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Model year                      Aston Martin       Ferrari          Lotus          McLaren
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Baseline...................................             431             421             361             372
2018............................................             418             408             350             361
2019............................................             406             396             340             350
2020............................................             393             384             329             340
2021............................................             382             373             320             329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below compares the levels projected for MY 2021 under the
three percent per year reductions with the levels requested by the
manufacturers. For Aston Martin and Lotus, their requested standards
for MY 2021 are more stringent than the levels represented by the three
percent year-over-year reductions, as shown in Table 3. EPA believes
that the requested MY 2021 standards for Aston Martin and Lotus are
appropriate, and, as proposed, is finalizing the requested alternative
standards with no adjustment.
    For Ferrari and McLaren, EPA proposed and is finalizing MY 2021
standards reflecting the 3 percent year-over-year reductions shown in
Table 3 below. This approach requires Ferrari and McLaren to achieve a
MY 2021 standard that is minimally more stringent than that requested
by the manufacturers. The differences are small, 5 g/mile or less, and
based on EPA's review of the information provided by the manufacturers,
EPA believes this additional emissions reduction can be achieved
through the use of credits, including air conditioning and off-cycle
credits, and the use of program flexibilities including credit carry-
forward and credit carry-back within the lead-time available. As
discussed above and in the proposal, EPA believes that MY 2021
standards based on 3 percent year-over-year reductions represent
reasonable progress over time for SVMs and a reasonable balance between
the program goal of GHG reductions and the degree of challenge the
standards pose to SVMs, based on EPA's assessment of the information,
including cost information, provided to the agency.

                          Table 3--Comparison of Three Percent per Year Reductions with SVM's Projections for MY 2021 (g/mile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Aston Martin   Aston Martin 3%      Ferrari                                                             McLaren
   Model year        requested         per year        requested      Ferrari 3% per  Lotus requested    Lotus 3% per      requested      McLaren 3% per
                     standards        reduction        standards      year reduction     standards      year reduction     standards      year reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2021             * 376              382              377            * 373            * 308              320              334            * 329
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Indicates final standard.

    As discussed in the notice of proposed determinations, EPA
recognizes that the three percent annual improvement approach for SVM
alternative standards for MY 2021 described above differs from the
approach for the primary program for MY 2021 in the Safer Affordable
Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks rulemaking.\18\ However, the SVM alternative
standards for MY 2021 remain significantly less stringent than the
primary program standards as revised by the SAFE

Vehicles rulemaking and represent significant relief for the SVMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed rulemaking, 83 FR 42986 (August 24, 2018); Final
rule, 85 FR 24174 (April 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Final Alternative SVM Standards

    A summary of the case-by-case alternative SVM standards and
associated per-manufacturer GHG reductions is provided in Table 4 of
this document. As discussed above, the MY 2017-2020 standards for all
four SVMs are the manufacturers' requested alternative standards due to
lead time concerns. For Aston Martin and Lotus, the MY 2021 standards
also are their requested standards. For Lotus, the MY 2018-2021
standards are conditional based on its ability to either demonstrate
that it remains eligible for SVM alternative standards under the
program's aggregation provisions or apply and be granted operational
independence status, as discussed in Section III above. For Ferrari and
McLaren, the MY 2021 standards are based on three percent year-over-
year reductions from their respective MY 2017 baselines.

                   Table 4--Summary of Standards and Per-Manufacturer GHG Reductions (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Aston Martin       Ferrari          Lotus          McLaren
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY 2017.........................................             431             421             361             372
MY 2018.........................................             396             408             361             372
MY 2019.........................................             380             395             344             368
MY 2020.........................................             374             386             341             360
MY 2021.........................................             376             373             308             329
g/mile Reduction................................              55              48              53              43
% Reduction (MY2017 to MY2021)..................           12.8%           11.4%           14.7%           11.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-14099 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P