[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38051-38053]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0330; OMB Control Numbers 1625-(0020, 0024, 0029, 0031,
0085)]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0020,
Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety Zones; 1625-
0024, Safety Approval of Cargo Containers; 1625-0029, Self-propelled
Liquefied Gas Vessels; 1625-0031, Plan Approval and Records for
Electrical Engineering Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J; and
1625-0085, Streamlined Inspection Program. Our ICRs describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting these
ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0330] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or
decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collections. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the

ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0330], and must
be received by September 2, 2014. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2014-0330], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, 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 DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2014-0330'' in the
``Search'' box. 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 will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2014-0330'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
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 statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety
Zones.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0020.
    Summary: The Coast Guard collects this information only when
someone seeks a security zone, regulated navigation area, or safety
area. It uses the information to assess the need to establish one of
these areas.
    Need: Section 1226 and 1231 of 33 U.S.C. and 50 U.S.C. 191 and 195,
and parts 6 and 165 of 33 CFR give the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP) the authority to designate security zones in the U.S. for as
long as the COTP deems necessary to prevent damage or injury. Section
1223 of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe rules to
control vessel traffic in areas he or she deems hazardous because of
reduced visibility, adverse weather, or vessel congestion. Section 1225
of 33 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to establish rules to allow the
designation of safety zones where access is limited to authorized
persons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the public from hazardous
situations.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Federal, State, and local government agencies, owners
and operators of vessels and facilities.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden increased from 272 hours to
413 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number of
responses.
    2. Title: Safety Approval of Cargo Containers.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0024.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with
requirements for owners and manufacturers of cargo containers to submit
information and keep records associated with the approval and
inspection of those containers. This information is required to ensure
compliance with the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC),
29 U.S.T. 3707; T.I.A.S. 9037.
    Need: This collection of information addresses the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for containers in 49 CFR parts 450 through
453. These rules are necessary since the U.S. is signatory to the CSC.
The CSC requires all containers to be safety approved prior to being
used in trade. These rules prescribe only the minimum requirements of
the CSC.
    Forms: Not Applicable.
    Respondents: Owners and manufacturers of containers and
organizations that the Coast Guard delegates to act as an approval
authority.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 104,095
hours to 98,452 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated number
of responses.
    3. Title: Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with our
rules for the design and operation of liquefied gas carriers.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. sections 3703 and 9101 authorizes the Coast
Guard to establish regulations to protect life, property, and the
environment from the hazards associated with the carriage of dangerous
liquid cargo in bulk. Title 46 C.F.R. part 154 prescribes the rules for
the carriage of liquefied gases in bulk on self-propelled vessels by
governing the design, construction, equipment, and operation of these
vessels and the safety of personnel aboard them.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of self-propelled vessels
carrying liquefied gas.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 6,754
hours to 7,890 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number
of respondents.
    4. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering
Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0031.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with our
rules on electrical engineering for the design and construction of U.S.
Flag commercial vessels.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 and 3703 authorize the Coast Guard to
establish rules to promote the safety of life and property in
commercial vessels. The electrical engineering rules appear at 46 CFR
chapter I, subchapter J (parts 110 through 113).
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, shipyards, designers, and
manufacturers of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 4,754
hours

to 6,843 hours a year due to an estimated increase in the annual number
of responses.
    5. Title: Streamlined Inspection Program.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0085.
    Summary: The Coast Guard established an optional Streamlined
Inspection Program (SIP) to provide owners and operators of U.S.
vessels an alternative method of complying with inspection requirements
of the Coast Guard.
    Need: Section 3306 of 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to
prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the inspections of vessels
required to be inspected under 46 U.S.C. 3301, and 46 U.S.C. 3103
allows the Coast Guard to rely on reports, documents, and records of
other persons who have been determined to be reliable to ensure
compliance with vessels and seamen requirements under 46 U.S.C.
subtitle II. The Streamlined Inspection Program regulations under 46
CFR part 8, subpart E, offer owners and operators of inspected vessels
an alternative to traditional Coast Guard inspection procedures. Owners
and operators of vessels opting to participate in the program will
maintain a vessel in compliance with a Company Action Plan (CAP) and
Vessel Action Plan (VAP) and have their own personnel periodically
perform many of the tests and examinations conducted by marine
inspectors of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard expects participating
vessels will continuously meet a higher level of safety and readiness
throughout the inspection cycle.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion. Application and plan development occur only
once at enrollment. Updates and revisions are required to be made every
two years and the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) and the
company will review the plans every five years.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 2,774
hours to 2,334 hours a year due to a decrease in the number of SIP
participants (i.e., companies and vessels).

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
Marshall B. Lytle,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-15671 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14229-14231]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0268]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Trailways Companies, Application for
Renewal of Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for renewal of exemption; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from
Adirondack Trailways, Pine Hill Trailways, and New York Trailways
(``Trailways'') for a renewal of their exemption from the hours-of-
service (HOS) record of duty status (RODs) provision in 49 CFR
395.8(c). Trailways currently holds an exemption for the period of May
31, 2013 to May 31, 2015. FMCSA extended the exemption to

include all regular-route passenger carriers and their drivers rather
than limiting it to Trailways' drivers. The renewal of the exemption
would allow these drivers to perform their daily duties without having
to record entries in the daily log for breaks in driving time of 10
minutes or less. Such activity would not be considered a change of duty
status. FMCSA requests public comment on Trailways' application for
exemption.

DATES: If granted, this exemption would be effective during the period
of May 31, 2015 to May 31, 2017. Comments must be received on or before
April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0268 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The online Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Trailways' Application for Exemption

    The HOS rule in 49 CFR 395.8(c) requires every commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) driver to record his or her duty status for each 24-hour
period using methods described in that section. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315
and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the HOS requirements
for up to a 2-year period if it finds such exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The procedures for
requesting an exemption (including renewals) are prescribed in 49 CFR
part 381.
    Trailways offers scheduled passenger-carrier service throughout New
York State and to the nearby Canadian cities of Montreal and Toronto.
Trailways and all other regular route passenger carriers and their
drivers were granted exemptions for the period May 31, 2013 to May 31,
2015. Trailways' initial application for relief from the HOS RODs rule
was submitted in 2012; a copy of the application is in the docket
identified at the beginning of this notice. The 2012 application
describes fully the nature of Trailways' operations.
    Trailways' application for a renewal of the exemption is for fixed-
route carriers and their drivers who are often away from the controls
of the vehicle for less than 10 minutes to assist passengers or make
passenger pick-ups and drop-offs along the route. Trailways' advised
that until March 2011 they and other motor carriers had been operating
in accordance with a 1996 interpretation of 49 CFR 395.8(c) issued by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The 1996 interpretation
allowed regular-route passenger carrier CMV drivers not to record a
location entry on the driver's RODS for non-driving periods of less
than 10 minutes. The RODS simply showed the stop as driving time. In
March 2011, New York State officials began enforcing the rule
literally, requiring that a change in duty status be entered on the log
any time the driver leaves the operating controls of the CMV. Trailways
was concerned that the violations would have a negative effect on the
companies' and the drivers' Compliance Safety Accountability ratings,
as well as schedules and passenger service because of the delays needed
to make the entries.
    Trailways therefore requested that their drivers with regularly
scheduled routes be exempted from changing their duty status from
``driving'' to ``on-duty not driving'' when making stops of less than
10 minutes.
    Trailways noted that the exemption would reduce the amount of total
time a driver can drive in a duty period. Without the exemption, the
times drivers spend at stops to load passengers, freight, etc. would be
logged as on-duty/not driving, increasing the driving time available,
but creating an additional administrative distraction every time the
driver leaves the controls, regardless of the reason or the limited
amount of time away from the vehicle controls. Trailways further
advised that its carriers provide flag stops and that having to update
the log at each flag stop increases the length of time the motorcoach
may delay traffic while waiting for the pick-up and/or discharge of
passengers and luggage, and then waiting for the driver to update the
log. According to Trailways, in many instances the large number of
brief stops will not fit on the log if the driver makes all of the
required entries.
    Trailways noted that the maximum possible driving time would be
reduced and that traffic congestion could be reduced. FMCSA believes
this would ensure that operations under the exemption would be at least
as safe as operations that comply with the requirements on change of
duty status.
    As in 2013, FMCSA would apply the exemption, if granted, to all
regular-route for-hire passenger-carrier drivers because they
presumably operate in much the same manner as Trailways. Including all
such drivers in the exemption will preclude the need for other carries
to file identical exemption requests, and will provide for consistent
enforcement because the same provisions would be applied to all similar
scenarios involving brief stops by drivers of these carriers during
their regular-route operations.
    A copy of Trailways' exemption application is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on the Trailways' application for an exemption
from certain

provisions of the driver's record of duty status rules in 49 CFR part
395. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of
business on April 17, 2015. Comments will be available for examination
in the docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of
this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent practicable
comments received in the public docket after the closing date of the
comment period.

Extent of the Exemption

    The exemption would be restricted to drivers employed by Trailways
and other regular-route for-hire passenger-carrier drivers. Instead of
complying with the provisions in 49 CFR 395.8(c), these drivers would
be exempted from changing their duty status from ``driving'' to ``on-
duty not driving'' when making stops of less than 10 minutes. These
drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399).

Terms of the Exemption

Period of the Exemption

    The limited exemption from the HOS RODs requirements of 49 CFR
395.8(c) is proposed to be effective from 12:01 a.m. on May 31, 2015,
through 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2017.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption would be in effect, no State may enforce any law or
regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the exemption
with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    Trailways and other regular-route for-hire passenger-carriers would
be required to notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs
operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
    a. Date of the accident,
    b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    c. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
    d. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    f. Number of fatalities,
    g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    i. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should
this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public
interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to
comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: March 11, 2015.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06176 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1411-1414]
[FR Doc No: 2012-141]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0801; FRL-9616-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia;
Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Fine Particle Standard for the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making determinations that the Metropolitan Washington,
District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) fine particle
(PM2.5) nonattainment area and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown,
West Virginia-Maryland (WV-MD) PM2.5 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as ``Areas'') have attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by their
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. These determinations are
based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. EPA is finding
these Areas to be in attainment, in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on February 9,
2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0801. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (hereafter referred to as ``the annual PM2.5
NAAQS'' or ``the annual standard''). At that time, EPA also established
a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``1997 24-hour standard'').
See, 40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air
quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for
calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April
5, 2005. The Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-
Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas were designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS during this designations process. See,
40 CFR part 81.309 (the District), 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland), 40 CFR
81.347 (Virginia), and 40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia). The Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area
consists of the District of Columbia (the District), a Northern
Virginia portion (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas,
and Manassas Park), and Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince
George's Counties in Maryland. The Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997
annual PM2.5 nonattainment area consists of Washington
County in Maryland and Berkley County in West Virginia.
    EPA previously made clean data determinations related to the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS for each of these Areas pursuant to 40
CFR 51.1004(c). Determinations were made for the Metropolitan
Washington Area, DC-MD-VA on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146) and for the
Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD Area on November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199).
These clean data determinations remain in effect.
    Under CAA section 179(c), EPA is required to make a determination
that a nonattainment area has attained by its applicable attainment
date, and publish that determination in the Federal Register. The
determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation, and
the state must still meet the statutory requirements for

redesignation in order for the Areas to be redesignated to attainment.
    Complete, quality-assured, and certified PM2.5 air
quality monitoring data, recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database for 2007-2009, show that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA
and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by their applicable attainment date.
    On November 4, 2011 (76 FR 68378), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia. The NPR proposed to determine that the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
nonattainment areas have attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. The proposal
is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring period and EPA's
determinations are in accordance with EPA's PM2.5
Implementation Rule of April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664). No comments were
submitted on the NPR.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded in the data in the EPA AQS database for the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
nonattainment areas for the monitoring period from 2007-2009. On the
basis of that review, EPA is determining that the Areas attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable April 5, 2010
attainment date.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentrations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, at all relevant
monitoring sites. The values calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, are referred to as design values, and these values are
used to determine if an area is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.
According to the PM2.5 implementation rule, the attainment
date for these Areas is April 5, 2010 and the monitoring data from
2007-2009 is used to determine if the Areas attained by April 5, 2010.
    Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values for each monitor
in the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-
Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas, respectively, for the years
2007-2009. All 2007-2009 design values are below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and
all monitors meet the data completeness requirements. Therefore, the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
nonattainment areas attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
their attainment date.

 Table 1--1997 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and Martinsburg-Hagerstown,
                                                  WV-MD Areas *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Certified
                                                                                design
                                                                             2007     2008     2009   value 2007-
       State                    County                   Monitor ID         Annual   Annual   Annual     2009
                                                                             mean     mean     mean     ([mu]g/
                                                                                m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metropolitan Washington, DC-VA-MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC                   District of Columbia........  110010041                  13.6     12.0     10.5        12.0
                     District of Columbia........  110010042                  13.7     12.3     10.1        12.1
                     District of Columbia........  110010043                  13.0     11.6     10.2        11.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA                   Alexandria..................  No monitor
                     Arlington...................  510130020                  13.8     12.0     10.1        11.9
                     Fairfax.....................  510590030                  12.5     11.1      9.8        11.1
                     Farifax County..............  510591005                  13.3     11.2      9.5        11.3
                     Fairfax.....................  510595001                  13.5     11.8      9.7        11.7
                     Falls Church................  No monitor
                     Loudon......................  511071005                  12.8     11.5      9.2        11.2
                     Manassas....................  No monitor
                     Manassas Park...............  No monitor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD                   Charles.....................  No monitor
                     Frederick...................  No monitor
                     Montgomery..................  240313001                  11.7     10.8      9.4        10.7
                     Prince Georges..............  240330025                  14.1     12.4     10.7        12.4
                     Prince Georges..............  240330030                  11.8     10.9      8.7        10.5
                     Prince Georges..............  240338003                  12.4     11.2      8.8        10.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV                   Berkley.....................  240430009                  12.9     11.8      9.7        11.5
MD                   Washington..................  540030003                  15.6     14.2     12.1        14.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The data presented in Table 1 are available at http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing the determinations that the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
nonattainment areas have attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard by the applicable attainment date (April 5, 2010). These
actions meet the requirement pursuant to section 179(c) of the CAA for
EPA to make a determination as to whether the Areas attained the
standard by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.

    Finalizing these actions does not constitute a redesignation of the
Areas to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing these determinations
does not involve approving maintenance plans for the Areas as required
under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the Areas have met
all other requirements for redesignation. The designation status of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD
areas remains nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
until such time as EPA determines that the Areas meet the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment and EPA acts to
redesignate the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-
Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment areas.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    This action merely makes attainment determinations based on air
quality data and does not impose any additional requirements. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 12, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to the determinations of attainment for
the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA and the Martinsburg-Hagerstown,
WV-MD PM2.5 nonattainment areas may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 27, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. Section 52.475 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.475  Determinations of attainment.

    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the Metropolitan Washington,
District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) fine particle
(PM2.5) nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 179(c) to determine, based on the
area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained
the standard. EPA also determined that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-
MD-VA nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences of failing
to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. Section 52.1082 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1082  Determinations of attainment.

    (a) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the Metropolitan Washington,
District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) fine particle
(PM2.5) nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 179(c) to determine, based on the
area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained
the standard. EPA also determined that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-
MD-VA nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences of failing
to attain pursuant to section 179(d).
    (b) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the Martinsburg-Hagerstown,
West Virginia-Maryland (WV-MD) fine particle (PM2.5)

nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 179(c) to determine, based on the area's air quality as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD nonattainment area is
not subject to the consequences of failing to attain pursuant to
section 179(d).

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
4. Section 52.2430 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2430  Determinations of attainment.

    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the Metropolitan Washington,
District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA) fine particle
(PM2.5) nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the
requirement pursuant to CAA section 179(c) to determine, based on the
area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained
the standard. EPA also determined that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-
MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment area is not subject to the
consequences of failing to attain pursuant to section 179(d).

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
5. Section 52.2527 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2527  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (e) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the Martinsburg-Hagerstown,
West Virginia-Maryland (WV-MD) fine particle (PM2.5)
nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of April 5, 2010. Therefore, EPA has met the requirement pursuant to
CAA section 179(c) to determine, based on the area's air quality as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard. EPA also
determined that the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD PM2.5
nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences of failing to
attain pursuant to section 179(d).

[FR Doc. 2012-141 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40321-40324]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14289]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95174; File No. SR-BOX-2022-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Article 4 of the Exchange's Bylaws To
Establish a Staggered Board

June 29, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2022, 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 self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Article 4 of the Exchange's Bylaws
to establish a staggered board. 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 proposes to amend its Bylaws to establish a staggered
Board. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.03 (Term
of Directors) of the Exchange Bylaws to provide that Exchange Directors
shall be divided into three classes, designated Class I, Class II and
Class III, which shall be as nearly equal in number and classification
as the total number of such Directors then serving on the Board
permits.\3\ Section 4.03 of the Bylaws would further provide that each
class of newly elected Directors shall serve staggered three-year
terms, with the term of office of one class expiring each year.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current Exchange Board expects to initially designate:
in Class I, one Non-Industry Director and one Participant Director;
in Class II, two Non-Industry Directors, one of which is a Public
Director; and in Class III, one Non-Industry Director and one
Participant Director. These initial class designations are intended
to balance, to the extent possible, the various categories of
Directors among the three classes. Board actions are taken by
majority vote in accordance with Section 4.11(j) of the Exchange
Bylaws.
    \4\ Currently under the Exchange's Bylaws, Directors serve one-
year terms and all Directors are nominated and begin serving each
year at the annual meeting of Members. This provision in Section
4.03 of the Exchange Bylaws is proposed to be changed to delete
``Directors shall serve terms of one year each beginning each year
at the annual meeting of the Members.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to commence such staggered three-year terms, the Exchange
proposes to amend Section 4.03 of the Bylaws to provide that Class I
Directors serving when amended Section 4.03 is adopted shall serve
until the first annual meeting of Members following the adoption of
amended Section 4.03; Class II Directors serving when amended Section
4.03 is adopted shall serve until the second annual meeting of Members
following the adoption of amended Section 4.03; and Class III Directors
serving when amended Section 4.03 is adopted shall serve until the
third annual meeting of Members following the adoption of amended
Section 4.03. The 2022 annual meeting of the Members of the Exchange
has not yet occurred. Accordingly, if this proposed rule change is
approved before the 2022 annual meeting of Members, the term of Class I
Directors would end at the 2022 annual meeting of Members, a new slate
of Class I Directors would be nominated and selected in 2022 in
accordance with the Bylaws.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In this circumstance, the term of Class II and Class III
directors would end at the Members annual meeting in 2023 and 2024,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 4.03 of the Bylaws to
provide that, in the case of any new Director as contemplated by
Article IV, Section 4.02, such Director shall be added to a class, as
determined by the Board at the time of such Director's initial election
or appointment, and shall have an initial term expiring at the same
time as the term of the class to which such Director has been added. In
making such determinations, the Board shall balance the categories of
Directors (e.g. Non-Industry, Public, Participant and Facility
Directors) among the classes to the extent possible. Pursuant to
Section 4.02 of the Bylaws, the total number of Directors is determined
by the Board and must be between five and eleven directors.
Accordingly, the Exchange is adding this provision to specify that if a
new Director is added to the Board, the term of that Director shall
correspond to the class to which that Director is assigned at the time
of election or appointment.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.02 to specify
that no decrease in the number of Directors shall have the effect of
shortening the term of any incumbent Director.\6\ The purpose of this
provision is to provide that, in the event that the Board determines to
reduce the number of overall Directors, the term of any incumbent
Director will not be cut short because of such determination. The
Exchange could not, for example, determine to reduce the size of the
Board by eliminating the Director seat for a Director who had two years
of his or her term remaining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This provision is substantially similar to a comparable
provision in the bylaws of another national securities exchange that
provides for a staggered board. See Amended and Restated By-Laws of
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, Section 2.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make certain other conforming edits
to other provisions of the Bylaws to clarify the responsibilities of
the Board's Nominating Committee and to address Director vacancies that
may arise. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.06
(Nominating Committee) of the Bylaws to specify that the Board's
Nominating Committee will nominate individuals in advance of each
annual meeting of the Members to begin service as Directors ``for the
applicable class term then expiring (i.e., Class I, Class II or Class
III)'' at such annual meeting of the Members.\7\ The Exchange also
proposes to amend Section 4.06(d) (Selection of Directors) of the
Bylaws to provide that, prior to each annual meeting of the Members,
the Nominating Committee shall select nominees for each Director
position ``for the class with its term then expiring'' to begin service
as Directors.\8\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.10
(Vacancies) by deleting the language ``until the next annual meeting or
until his or her successor is elected and qualified'' and inserting the
language ``for the remainder of the applicable class term'' to provide
that a Director who is elected by the Board to fill a vacancy (e.g., as
a result of the death, resignation, removal or increase in the
authorized number of Directors), shall serve for the remainder of the
applicable class term. For example, if a Director in Class II resigns,
the Director elected to fill the vacancy would serve for the remainder
of the term of Class II Directors.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Similarly, the Exchange also proposes to amend the final
sentence of Section 4.06 to specify that at each annual meeting of
the Members, the individuals selected ``for the applicable class
term'' pursuant to Section 4.06 of the Bylaws shall begin serving as
Directors.
    \8\ The Exchange proposes to amend Section 4.06(d)(i) to include
the same conforming edits to specify that the Nominating Committee
shall meet for the purposes of selecting proposed Director nominees
``for the class then expiring'' and that the Nominating Committee
shall provide the names of all proposed Director nominees ``for the
class then expiring'' to the Exchange's Secretary not later than
sixty days prior to the date of the annual meeting of the Members.
    \9\ With respect to a vacancy arising from an increase in the
number of authorized Directors, pursuant to proposed Section 4.03 of
the Bylaws, the Director filling such vacancy would be assigned to a
class by the Board and would have an initial term expiring at the
same time as the term of the class to which such Director has been
added.

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

    The Exchange notes that it is not proposing any change to the
composition of the Board, such as the requirement that 20% of Directors
must be a Participant Directors or that a majority of Directors must be
Non-Industry Directors.\10\ All nominations and elections of Directors
under the proposed staggered Board structure must be consistent with
the existing composition requirements in the Bylaws. In addition,
consistent with the existing Bylaws, Directors may serve consecutive
terms.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 4.02 of the Bylaws.
    \11\ See Section 4.03 of the Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of the Exchange Act,\12\ in general, and furthers
the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\13\ in
particular, because it is designed 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; and it is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by this
Exchange Act matters not related to the purposes of the Exchange Act or
the administration of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the governance and
administration of the Exchange would benefit from a Board structure in
which Directors each serve staggered three-year terms in at least two
ways. First, the Exchange believes that shifting from one-year terms
for Exchange Directors to staggered three-year terms will help preserve
institutional knowledge among Exchange Directors. Under the Exchange's
current Bylaws, an entirely new set of Directors can be selected each
year, which can potentially disrupt ongoing initiatives by the Exchange
or result in a complete loss of institutional knowledge if all of the
new Directors have no prior experience serving on the Exchange's Board.
The Exchange believes that it benefits from the previous experience of
those who have previously served as Exchange Directors and that
ensuring some continuity among Directors promotes fair and orderly
transitions to new Board leadership. By increasing the term length of
each Director from one to three years, the Exchange can eliminate the
possibility that an entirely new slate of Directors with no prior
experience as a Director occurs. And, by staggering the election of
Directors by dividing Directors into three classes with only one class
elected each year, the Exchange can preserve institutional knowledge
among a majority of the Directors over time. This change will ensue
that at the time of every annual meeting of the Members, there will
remain veteran leadership on the Board. In turn, the Exchange believes
that these changes will help to improve the administration of the
Exchange by fostering cooperation and coordination with persons, such
as Directors, engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions in
securities and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.\14\ The Exchange also believes,
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, that these changes
will also further the protection of investors and the public interest,
which benefit from a governance structure that is designed to preserve
institutional knowledge gained by incumbent Directors and through
orderly transitions to new leadership among Directors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange believes that the proposed staggered Board
structure would help prevent any one Member or group of Members acting
in coordination from exercising an undue influence over the Board
through the election of Board Directors. As noted, currently the entire
Board of Directors can be replaced each year. As a result, although no
one Member has more than a 20% voting interest in the election of
Directors, two or more Members acting in coordination could potentially
exercise an outsized influence in the selection of Directors.
Establishing a staggered Board would make it more difficult for such
Members to take control of the Board, and therefore control of the
Exchange, through a single election of the Board. By reducing the risk
of coordinated Members taking control of the Board, the Board will be
better positioned to address difficult, longer-term considerations
related to management of the Exchange, rather than focusing on shorter-
term considerations of certain Members. For example, a coordinated
group of Members might seek to elect a slate of Directors that are more
heavily focused on increasing Exchange profits without appropriate
consideration of the longer-term growth of the Exchange. A staggered
Board structure would make it more challenging for such Members to
effect such a directional change by preventing the replacement of the
entire Board of Directors in a given year. In turn, the Exchange
believes that this would, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act, further the protection of investors and the public
interest who are likely to benefit from an Exchange that is able to
focus on longer-term goals rather than shorter-term interests of
certain Members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition, the Exchange notes that, consistent with Section
6(b)(5), the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\17\ The
existing composition requirements related to Directors would remain the
same under the proposed rule change, so there would not be, for
example, any reduction in the representation of Exchange Participants
on the Board. Moreover, all Directors would be subject to the same
requirements under the proposed rule change (i.e., all Directors,
regardless of type, would be divided into one of three classes, each
serving three-year terms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange notes that, in order to commence the operation of the
staggered Board, Directors assigned by the Board to Class I would serve
for only one year following the adoption of this proposed rule change
while Class II and Class III Directors would serve for two and three
years respectively. While this could potentially be viewed as unfairly
discriminatory against Class I and Class II Directors whose tenure
would have a shorter duration than a Class III Director, these
differing tenures are unavoidable to establish a staggered Board.
Directors may also be re-elected and serve consecutive terms. As a
result, although a Director assigned to Class I may have an initially
shorter tenure, if re-elected at the time of the first annual meeting
of Members following the adoption of this proposed rule change, such
Director would then serve a three-year term.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that the proposed staggered Board
structure is substantially similar to the staggered board structure of
at least two

exchanges.\18\ Other exchanges have historically also operated with a
substantially similar staggered board structure, including the BATS
Exchange Inc. and EDGX Exchange Inc. and EDGA Exchange Inc. prior to
their business combination with CBOE Holdings Inc.,\19\ as well as
International Securities Exchange, LLC prior to 2013.\20\ Accordingly,
the Exchange's proposed staggered Board structure does not present any
novel considerations that the Commission has not previously considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Amended and Restated By-Laws of Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''), Section 2.02(a) and First
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``LTSE''), Section 3.3(b). The bylaws of The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC''), another self-regulatory organization, also
provide for a similar staggered board consisting of three classes.
See OCC By-Laws, Article III, Section 3.
    \19\ See Exchange Act Release No. 57322 (File No. 10-182),
Exhibit A.3 of the BATS Exchange Inc. Form 1 Application, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, (Amended and Restated By-Laws of BATS
Exchange Inc. at Section 3(b)) (February 13, 2008), available at
https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2008/34-57322_application.htm#exhibit-a, and Exchange Act Release No. 60651
(File No. 10-193), Exhibit A.3 of the EDGX Exchange Inc. Form 1
Application, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (Amended and Restated
Bylaws of EDGX Exchange Inc. at Section 3(b)) (September 11, 2009),
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2009/edgx-f1-application.htm#exhibit-a.
    \20\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69164, 78 FR 17727 (March 22,
2013) (SR-ISE-2013-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\21\ The
proposed rule change is concerned only with the governance structure
and internal administration of the Exchange Board and would establish a
staggered Board structure that is substantially similar to the existing
board structure of other exchanges and self-regulatory organizations.
As a result, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change would result in any burden on competition or other competition-
related considerations between or among Exchange Participants or
between different exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2022-19 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-2022-19. 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-2022-19, and should be submitted on
or before July 27, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14289 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43093]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 74

[Docket No. FDA-1998-C-0381] (Formerly Docket No. 98C-0676)

Sensient Technologies Corporation; Withdrawal of Color Additive
Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a color additive
petition (CAP 8C0261) proposing that the color additive regulations be
amended to provide for the safe use of External D&C Violet No. 2 in
coloring externally applied drug products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of August 24, 1998 (63 FR 45073), FDA announced that a color
additive petition (CAP 8C0261) had been filed by Warner-Jenkinson Co.,
Inc. (now part of Sensient Cosmetic Technologies, a unit of Sensient
Technologies Corporation), 107 Wade Ave., South Plainfield, NJ 07080.
The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR
part 74 Listing of Color Additives Subject to Certification to provide
for the safe use of External D&C Violet No. 2 in coloring externally
applied drug products. Sensient Technologies Corporation has now
withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR
71.6(c)(2)).

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2013-17382 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P