[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78892-78896]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27867]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0155; FRL-10503-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Packaging Corporation of America
Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Alternative Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), through a letter
dated June 29, 2021, which would establish alternative monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under the Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) SIP Call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0155 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also
called the good neighbor provision, states are required to address the
interstate transport of air pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor
provision requires that each state's implementation plan contain
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
state that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), or that will interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.
    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone'' (NOX SIP Call). The NOX SIP
Call required eastern states, including Tennessee, to submit SIPs
limiting emissions of ozone season NOX by implementing
statewide emissions budgets. The NOX SIP Call addressed the
good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and was designed to
mitigate the impact of transported NOX emissions, one of the
precursors of ozone.\1\ EPA developed the NOX Budget Trading
Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. This trading
program allowed the following sources to participate in a regional cap
and trade program: generally, electricity generating units (EGUs) with
capacity greater than 25 megawatts (MW); and large industrial non-EGUs,
such as

boilers and combustion turbines, with a rated heat input greater than
250 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The
NOX SIP Call also identified potential reductions from
cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As originally promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also
addressed good neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, but EPA subsequently stayed and later rescinded the rule's
provisions with respect to that standard. See 65 FR 56245 (September
18, 2000); 84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements, in 2000
and 2001, TDEC submitted a revision to add new rule sections to the
SIP-approved version of Chapter 1200-3-27, Nitrogen Oxides, of the
Tennessee Rules. EPA approved the revision as compliant with Phase I of
the NOX SIP Call in 2004. See 69 FR 3015 (January 22, 2004).
The approved revision required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the State to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program beginning in
2004. In 2005, Tennessee submitted, and EPA approved, a SIP revision to
address additional emissions reductions required for the NOX
SIP Call under Phase II. See 70 FR 76408 (December 27, 2005).
    In 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which
required several eastern states, including Tennessee, to submit SIPs
that prohibited emissions consistent with revised ozone season
NOX budgets (as well as annual budgets for NOX
and sulfur dioxide). See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); see also 71 FR
25328 (April 28, 2006). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of
transported NOX emissions with respect to ozone and
PM2.5. CAIR established several trading programs that EPA
implemented through federal implementation plans (FIPs) for EGUs
greater than 25 MW in each affected state, but not large non-EGUs;
states could submit SIPs to replace the FIPs that achieved the required
emission reductions from EGUs and/or other types of sources.\2\ When
the CAIR trading program for ozone season NOX was
implemented beginning in 2009, EPA discontinued administration of the
NOX Budget Trading Program; however, the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call continued to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAIR had separate trading programs for annual sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions, seasonal NOX emissions, and
annual NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61535), EPA approved revisions to
Tennessee's SIP that incorporated requirements for CAIR. Consistent
with CAIR's requirements, EPA approved a SIP revision in which
Tennessee regulations: (1) terminated its NOX Budget Trading
Program requirements, and (2) incorporated CAIR annual and ozone season
NOX state trading programs. See 74 FR 61535. Participation
of EGUs in the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program
addressed the State's obligation under the NOX SIP Call for
those units, and Tennessee also chose to require non-EGUs subject to
the NOX SIP Call to participate in the same CAIR trading
program. In this manner, Tennessee's CAIR rules incorporated into the
SIP addressed the State's obligations under the NOX SIP Call
with respect to both EGUs and non-EGUs.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling
allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule
consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on
developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued to be
implemented with the NOX annual and ozone season trading
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual trading
program beginning in 2010.
    Following the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and address good
neighbor obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). Through FIPs, CSAPR required EGUs in eastern
states, including Tennessee, to meet annual and ozone season
NOX emission budgets and annual SO2 emission
budgets implemented through new trading programs. Implementation of
CSAPR began on January 1, 2015.\3\ CSAPR also contained provisions that
would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with
the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. Participation
by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading program for ozone season
NOX generally addressed the state's obligation under the
NOX SIP Call for EGUs. CSAPR did not initially contain
provisions allowing states to incorporate large non-EGUs into that
trading program to meet the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
for non-EGUs. EPA also stopped administering CAIR trading programs with
respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014).
    \4\ See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR 13275 (March
14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the CAIR programs have not been implemented in
Tennessee since 2014, ozone season NOX emissions have
remained well below the NOX SIP Call budget levels. Through
a letter to EPA dated February 27, 2017,\5\ Tennessee provided a SIP
revision to incorporate a new provision--TACPR 1200-03-27-.12,
``NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers and
Combustion Turbines'' (TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule)--into the
SIP. The TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule established a state
control program for sources that are subject to the NOX SIP
Call, but not covered under CSAPR or the CSAPR Update (background
regarding the CSAPR Update is provided later in this notice). The TN
2017 NOX SIP Call Rule contains several subsections that
together comprise a non-EGU control program under which Tennessee will
allocate a specified budget of allowances to affected sources.
Subsequently, on May 11, 2018, and October 11, 2018, Tennessee
submitted letters requesting conditional approval \6\ of the TN 2017
NOX SIP Call Rule and committing to provide a SIP revision
to EPA by December 31, 2019, to address a deficiency by revising the
definition of ``affected unit'' to remove the unqualified exclusion for
any unit that serves a generator that produces power for sale. Based on
the State's commitment to submit a SIP revision addressing the
identified deficiency, EPA conditionally approved the February 27,
2017, submission. In the same action, EPA approved removal of the
State's NOX Budget Trading Program and CAIR rules from
Tennessee's SIP. See 84 FR 7998 (March 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that it received the submittal on February 28,
2017.
    \6\ Under CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally approve a
SIP revision based on a commitment from a state to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year
from the date of approval. If the state fails to meet the commitment
within one year of the final conditional approval, the conditional
approval will be treated as a disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee submitted a SIP revision on December 19, 2019, which
revised Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) 1200-03-
27-.12, ``NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers
and Combustion Turbines'' to correct the definition of ``affected
unit'' and to clarify requirements related to stationary boilers and
combustion turbines. On March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12092), EPA published a
final rule which corrected the definition of ``affected unit'' and
clarified requirements related to stationary boilers and combustion
turbines. EPA also converted the

conditional approval of the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule to a
full approval. See EPA's March 2, 2021 (86 FR 12092), final rule for
further detail on these changes and EPA's rationale for approving them.
    After litigation that reached the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit
generally upheld CSAPR but remanded several state budgets to EPA for
reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118,
129-30 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA addressed the remanded ozone season
NOX budgets in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), which also partially addressed
eastern states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The air quality modeling for the CSAPR
Update demonstrated that Tennessee contributes significantly to
nonattainment and/or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states. The CSAPR Update reestablished an option for
most states to meet their ongoing obligations for non-EGUs under the
NOX SIP Call by including the units in the CSAPR Update
trading program.
    The CSAPR Update trading program replaced the original CSAPR
trading program for ozone season NOX for most covered
states. Tennessee's EGUs participate in the CSAPR Update trading
program, which generally also addresses the State's obligations under
the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. However, Tennessee elected not to
include its large non-EGUs in the CSAPR Update ozone season trading
program. Because Tennessee's large non-EGUs do not participate in any
CSAPR or CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NOX
emissions, the NOX SIP Call regulations at 40 CFR
51.121(r)(2), as well as anti-backsliding provisions at 40 CFR
51.905(f) and 40 CFR 51.1105(e), require these non-EGUs to maintain
compliance with NOX SIP Call requirements in some other way.
    Under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) of the NOX SIP Call
regulations, where a state's implementation plan contains control
measures for EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and combustion turbines,
the SIP must contain enforceable limits on the ozone season
NOX mass emissions from these sources. In addition, under 40
CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NOX SIP Call regulations as
originally promulgated, the SIP also had to require these sources to
monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 75, which
generally entails the use of continuous emission monitoring systems.
Tennessee triggered these requirements by including control measures in
its SIP for these types of sources, and the requirements have remained
in effect despite the discontinuation of the NOX Budget
Trading Program after the 2008 ozone season.
    On March 8, 2019, EPA revised some of the regulations that were
originally promulgated in 1998 to implement the NOX SIP
Call.\7\ The revision gave states covered by the NOX SIP
Call greater flexibility concerning the form of the NOX
emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their
SIPs for certain emissions sources. The revision amended 40 CFR
51.121(i)(4) to make Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
optional, such that SIPs may establish alternative monitoring
requirements for NOX SIP Call budget units that meet the
general requirements of 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1). Under the
updated provision, a state's implementation plan still needs to include
some form of emissions monitoring requirements for these types of
sources, consistent with the NOX SIP Call's general
enforceability and monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 51.121(f)(1) and
(i)(1), respectively, but states are no longer required to satisfy
these general NOX SIP Call requirements specifically through
the adoption of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State
Implementation Plans Required Under the NOX SIP Call,''
84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following EPA's March 8, 2019, revision to the NOX SIP
Call requirements, Packaging Company of America (PCA) petitioned TDEC
to adopt revised permit conditions applicable to PCA's Highway 57,
Counce, Tennessee facility (PCA Counce Mill) with an alternative
monitoring option for this large non-EGU, along with corresponding
revised recordkeeping and reporting conditions. This petition resulted
in the issuance of the permit for PCA Counce Mill included as part of
TDEC's SIP submittal. The changes allow PCA Counce Mill to address the
NOX SIP Call's requirements for enforceable limits on ozone
season NOX mass emissions through non-Part 75 alternative
monitoring and reporting methodologies. The June 29, 2021, source-
specific SIP revision submitted by TDEC contains the permit provisions
that TDEC modified to specifically address the alternative monitoring
provisions allowed under the NOX SIP Call and requests
conditional approval of those provisions into the SIP. The contents of
the submittal and EPA's analysis is further discussed in Section III.

II. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    TDEC's June 29, 2021, letter requests that EPA conditionally
approve into Tennessee's SIP Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
operating permit No. 078563 for PCA Counce Mill, state effective on
June 10, 2021, to provide alternative NOX monitoring and
reporting for Boiler #1 at this facility in accordance with 40 CFR
51.121(i). TDEC requests that this approval be conditioned on
Tennessee's commitment to modify the provisions at Chapter 1200-03-
27.12(11) to specify allowable non-Part 75 permissible alternative
monitoring and reporting methodologies for large industrial non-EGUs
subject to the NOX SIP Call, such as the alternative
monitoring and reporting provisions in permit No. 078563. The
submission also includes a demonstration under CAA section 110(l)
intended to show that the revision would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As discussed
later, EPA has reviewed these changes, preliminarily finds them
consistent with the CAA and regulations governing the NOX
SIP Call, and is proposing to conditionally approve the revisions to
incorporate the source-specific SIP revision into the State's
implementation plan.

III. Analysis of Tennessee's Submission

    On September 16, 2020, PCA submitted a petition to TDEC requesting
approval of alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for one boiler subject to the NOX SIP Call
(Combination Boiler #1) at PCA's Counce Mill. The petition states that
PCA uses NOX CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the Counce
Mill's Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) permit. Combination Boiler
#1 is the only monitor within the mill that is subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75, and the other NOX sources at
the mill operate CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR part 60. The petition
states that PCA wishes to streamline the monitoring requirements among
the sources at the mill.
    That petition resulted in TDEC's revision of the PCA Counce Mill
permit conditions to address NOX SIP Call requirements and
to adopt an alternative monitoring option (along with corresponding
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) for this large non-EGU. These
permit conditions have been submitted by TDEC for approval into
Tennessee's SIP. These revised permit conditions are consistent with
the flexibility provided to states on

March 8, 2019 (84 FR 8422) concerning the form of the NOX
emissions monitoring requirements that the states must include in their
SIPs for certain emissions sources, such as PCA Counce Mill, to comply
with the NOX SIP Call, required at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4).
Permit condition one requires compliance with permit conditions two
through five. Permit condition two provides that PCA Counce Mill may
demonstrate compliance with Tennessee Rule 1200-03-27-.12 by monitoring
NOX emissions from Combination Boiler #1 using the
monitoring methodologies for NOX emission rate set forth in
40 CFR part 60, Appendix B in combination with monitoring of heat
input.
    Permit Condition 3 requires that PCA Counce Mill submit a program
for conducting continuous in-stack monitoring for NOX mass
emissions for approval by TDEC in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 60, Appendix B. To be approvable be TDEC, the program shall
address the following:
    (a) A description of the overall monitoring program;
    (b) Specifications demonstrating that the proposed monitoring
instruments will meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B;
    (c) Specifications for the proposed fuel flow meter and a
discussion of how the fuel Btu content will be determined;
    (d) Proposed location(s) of the monitoring instruments on the
boiler effluent gas stream;
    (e) Proposed procedures for conducting performance specification
testing of the monitoring instruments in units of the applicable
standard (i.e. NOX mass emissions);
    (f) Proposed ongoing monitoring instrument quality assurance
procedures (40 CFR 60, Appendix F or approved alternative);
    (g) Procedures for addressing missing data (40 CFR 75, Appendix C,
Appendix F or approved alternative); and
    (h) Proposed format for the reporting of data.
    Permit condition four specifies that the permittee shall calculate
NOX mass emissions (in tons) for each control period and
report the total to TDEC no later than December 31 following the end of
the control period. Further, condition four requires that
NOX emission rates shall be calculated from continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) measurements using Method 19 in
Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.
    Permit condition five requires that the permittee shall maintain
records of all measurements; all continuous monitoring system
performance evaluations; all continuous monitoring system or monitoring
device calibration checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on
these systems or devices; and all other information required by this
part recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection. These
records shall be retained for at least five years following the end of
the control period in which such measurements, maintenance, reports,
and records were collected.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits revision of a SIP that would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS, reasonable further
progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. In its submittal, TDEC includes a demonstration
in accordance with Section 110(l) of the CAA that the proposed revision
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Tennessee's demonstration concludes that the
proposed changes are compliant with Section 110(l) of the CAA because:
(1) PCA Counce Mill's NOX emissions remain substantially
below the facility's NOX budget established pursuant to
TAPCR 1200-03-27-.12; (2) Tennessee's review of all non-EGUs subject to
the NOX SIP Call demonstrates that NOX emissions
for the collection of affected facilities are well below the state's
NOX budget; (3) the alternative monitoring requirements
would be permanent, enforceable, and sufficient to determine whether
the source is in compliance with the NOX SIP Call emissions
requirements; and (4) the work practice requirements of 40 CFR 63
Subpart DDDDD (periodic tune-ups) will provide additional assurance
that the boiler is operating properly. EPA agrees with Tennessee's
rationale summarized above and the conclusion that the proposed
revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    In order to address the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
for sources that are not covered under a CSAPR trading program for
ozone season NOX emissions, SIP revisions must provide for
enforceable emissions limitations and require emissions monitoring
consistent with the NOX SIP Call's general enforceability
and monitoring requirements.\8\ See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2). EPA is
proposing to find that TDEC's submittal meets these requirements and
all other requirements of the CAA, including 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) and
(4), except that Tennessee additionally will need to modify TAPCR 1200-
03-27.12(11) to specify permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring
and reporting methodologies within one year of the effective date of
EPA's conditional approval. Thus, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve TDEC operating permit No. 078563, state effective on June 10,
2021, into Tennessee's SIP pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4), subject
to TDEC's specific commitment to modify the provisions of TAPCR 1200-
03-27.12(11) to specify permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring
and reporting methodologies within one year of EPA's conditional
approval, as described in TDEC's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2)(ii) and 51.121(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Tennessee meets its commitment to submit a SIP revision
modifying the provisions of TAPCR 1200-03-27.12(11) to specify
permissible non-Part 75 alternative monitoring and reporting
methodologies, as allowed under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) and (4), by 12
months from the date of final approval of this proposed action, TDEC
operating permit No. 078563 will remain a part of the SIP. However, if
the State fails to submit this revision on or before 12 months from the
date of final approval of this action, the conditional approval will
become a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I
through III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board's operating permit No.
078563 for the PCA Counce Mill, state effective on June 10, 2021. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Tennessee Air Pollution
Control Board operating permit No. 078563 for PCA Counce Mill, state
effective June 10, 2021, for incorporation into the Tennessee SIP.
These changes were submitted by Tennessee on June 29, 2021.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action
merely proposes to conditionally approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: December 16, 2022
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-27867 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73168-73169]
[DOCID:fr02de08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1241; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-121-AD;
Amendment 39-15754; AD 2006-20-51 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200LR Series Airplanes
Powered by General Electric (GE) Model GE90-110B Engines, and Model
777-300ER Series Airplanes Powered by GE Model GE90-115B Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain Boeing Model 777-200LR and -300ER series airplanes.
That AD currently requires revising the airplane flight manual to
prohibit takeoffs at less than full-rated thrust. This new AD reduces
the applicability of the existing AD. This AD results from a report of
two occurrences of engine thrust rollback during takeoff. We are
issuing this AD to prevent dual-engine thrust rollback during the
takeoff phase of flight, which could result in the airplane failing to
lift off before reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear
obstacles below the takeoff flight path.

DATES: This AD is effective January 6, 2009.
    We must receive comments on this AD by February 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 2, 2006, we issued AD 2006-20-51, amendment 39-14786 (71
FR 59651, October 11, 2006), for certain Boeing Model 777-200LR and -
300ER series airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight
manual to prohibit takeoffs at less than full-rated thrust. That AD
resulted from a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback
(reduction) during takeoff. We issued that AD to prevent dual-engine
thrust rollback, which could result in the airplane failing to lift off
before reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear obstacles
below the takeoff flight path.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since issuance of AD 2006-20-51, Boeing has informed us that no
U.S.-registered airplanes have full authority digital engine control
(FADEC) software version A.0.4.5 installed, and that software version
A.0.4.6 is being installed in production. In addition, we have
determined that the affected airplanes are limited to those subject to
the identified unsafe condition with FADEC electronic engine control
(EEC) software version A.0.4.5 installed. We have also determined that
FADEC software version A.0.4.6 has incorporated software revisions that
prevent the reported roll-back conditions from occurring. Therefore, we
also have determined that the applicability of AD 2006-20-51 can be
revised to apply only to affected airplanes equipped with FADEC
software version A.0.4.5.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    No airplanes affected by this AD are on the U.S. Register. We are
issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the(se) same type
design(s) that could be registered in the United States in the future.
This AD revises AD 2006-20-51. This AD retains the requirements of the
existing AD and reduces the applicability of the existing AD.
    Since no U.S. registered airplanes are affected by this AD, notice
and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary.

Interim Action

    We consider the requirements of this AD ``interim action.'' The
manufacturer is developing a modification to address the unsafe
condition (i.e., decreased takeoff thrust). We might consider further
rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-1241; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-121-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-14786 (71 FR
59651, October 11, 2006) and adding the following new AD:

2006-20-51-R1 Boeing: Amendment 39-15754. Docket No. FAA-2008-1241;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-121-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 6,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2006-20-51.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes in Table 1 of this AD,
certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Equipped with full
                                  Powered by General   authority digital
         Boeing model--              Electric (GE)      engine control
                                        model--       software version--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 777-200LR series airplanes..  GE90-110B engines.  A.0.4.5
(2) 777-300ER series airplanes..  GE90-115B engines.  A.0.4.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of two occurrences of engine
thrust rollback during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent
dual-engine thrust rollback during the takeoff phase of flight,
which could result in the airplane failing to lift off before
reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear obstacles below
the takeoff flight path.

Compliance

    (e) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Restatement of AD 2006-20-51:

Revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    (f) Within 24 hours after October 16, 2006 (the effective date
of 2006-20-51), revise the Certificate Limitations Section of the
AFM to include the following statement. This may be done by
inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

Use of reduced thrust takeoff ratings determined by either the
assumed temperature method or the fixed de-rate method or a
combination of both, is prohibited. Full-rated thrust must be used
for takeoff.

    Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Special Flight Permit

    (g) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch,
ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 16, 2008.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-28158 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 69302]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28904]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-6F; SEC File No. 270-185; OMB Control No. 3235-0238.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-6F (17 CFR
274.15), Notice of Intent to Elect to be Subject to Sections 55 through
65 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.'' The purpose of Form N-6F is
to notify the Commission of a company's intent to file a notification
of election to become subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``1940
Act''). Certain companies may have to make a filing with the Commission
before they are ready to elect to be regulated as a business
development company.\1\ A company that is excluded from the definition
of ``investment company'' by Section 3(c)(1) because it has fewer than
one hundred shareholders and is not making a public offering of its
securities may lose such an exclusion solely because it proposes to
make a public offering of securities as a business development company.
Such company, under certain conditions, would not lose its exclusion if
it notifies the Commission on Form N-6F of its intent to make an
election to be regulated as a business development company. The company
only has to file a Form N-6F once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A company might not be prepared to elect to be subject to
Sections 55 through 65 of the 1940 Act because its capital structure
or management compensation plan is not yet in compliance with the
requirements of those sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that on average approximately thirteen
companies file these notifications each year. Each of those companies
need only make a single filing of Form N-6F. The Commission further
estimates that this information collection imposes burden of 0.5 hours,
resulting in a total annual PRA burden of 6.5 hours. Based on the
estimated wage rate, the total cost to the industry of the hour burden
for complying with Form N-6F would be approximately $2,080.00.
    The collection of information under Form N-6F is mandatory. The
information provided under the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 3, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28904 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63668-63670]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their

floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location and case                                                                                Community
  State and county           No.          Chief executive officer of community    Community map repository         Date of modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    Chaffee (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable Greg Felt, Chairman,    Chaffee County Planning and   Oct. 10, 2019................       080269
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Chaffee     Chaffee County Board of               Zoning Department, 104
     1943).           County (19-08-       Commissioners, P.O. Box 699,          Crestone Avenue, Room 125,
                      0038P).              Salida, CO 81201.                     Salida, CO 81201.
    Denver (FEMA     City and County of   The Honorable Michael B. Hancock,     Department of Public Works,   Oct. 18, 2019................       080046
     Docket No.: B-   Denver (19-08-       Mayor, City and County of Denver,     201 West Colfax Avenue,
     1948).           0316P).              1437 Bannock Street, Suite 350,       Denver, CO 80202.
                                           Denver, CO 80202.
    El Paso (FEMA    City of Colorado     The Honorable John Suthers, Mayor,    Pikes Peak Regional Building  Oct. 15, 2019................       080060
     Docket No.: B-   Springs (19-08-      City of Colorado Springs, 30 South    Department, 2880
     1952).           0188P).              Nevada Avenue, Suite 601, Colorado    International Circle,
                                           Springs, CO 80903.                    Colorado Springs, CO 80910.
    Weld (FEMA       Unincorporated       The Honorable Barbara Kirkmeyer,      Department of Planning        Oct. 15, 2019................       080266
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Weld        Chair, Weld County Board of           Services, 1555 North 17th
     1948).           County (19-08-       Commissioners, P.O. Box 758,          Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631.
                      0635P).              Greeley, CO 80632.
Florida:
    Charlotte (FEMA  Unincorporated       The Honorable Ken Doherty, Chairman,  Charlotte County Community    Oct. 17, 2019................       120061
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Charlotte   Charlotte County Board of             Development Department,
     1952).           County (19-04-       Commissioners, 18500 Murdock          18500 Murdock Circle, Port
                      0669P).              Circle, Suite 536, Port Charlotte,    Charlotte, FL 33948.
                                           FL 33948.
    Lee (FEMA        Town of Fort Myers   The Honorable Anita Cereceda, Mayor,  Community Development         Oct. 11, 2019................       120673
     Docket No.: B-   Beach (19-04-        Town of Fort Myers Beach, 2525        Department, 2525 Estero
     1943).           3002P).              Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach,   Boulevard, Fort Myers
                                           FL 33931.                             Beach, FL 33931.
    Monroe (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Sylvia Murphy, Mayor,   Monroe County Building        Oct. 10, 2019................       125129
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Monroe      Monroe County Board of                Department, 2798 Overseas
     1948).           County (19-04-       Commissioners, 102050 Overseas        Highway, Suite 300,
                      2934P).              Highway, Suite 234, Key Largo, FL     Marathon, FL 33050.
                                           33037.
    Palm Beach       Unincorporated       The Honorable Mack Bernard, Mayor,    Palm Beach County Building    Oct. 11, 2019................       120192
     (FEMA Docket     areas of Palm        Palm Beach County Board of            Division, 2300 North Jog
     No.: B-1948).    Beach County (18-    Commissioners, 301 North Olive        Road, West Palm Beach, FL
                      04-6177P).           Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401.   33411.
    Sarasota (FEMA   Town of Longboat     Mr. Thomas A. Harmer, Manager, Town   Planning, Zoning and          Oct. 15, 2019................       125126
     Docket No.: B-   Key (19-04-2109P).   of Longboat Key, 501 Bay Isles        Building Department, 501
     1943).                                Road, Longboat Key, FL 34228.         Bay Isles Road, Longboat
                                                                                Key, FL 34228.
Massachusetts:       Town of Charlton     The Honorable David Singer,           Town Hall, 37 Main Street,    Oct. 2, 2019.................       250299
 Worcester (FEMA      (19-01-0726P).       Chairman, Town of Charlton Board of   Charlton, MA 01507.
 Docket No.: B-                            Selectmen, 37 Main Street,
 1948).                                    Charlton, MA 01507.
New Mexico: Santa    City of Santa Fe     The Honorable Alan M. Webber, Mayor,  Building and Development      Oct. 7, 2019.................       350070
 Fe (FEMA Docket      (18-06-3876P).       City of Santa Fe, P.O. Box 909,       Services Department, 102
 No.: B-1943).                             Santa Fe, NM 87504.                   Grant Avenue, Santa Fe, NM
                                                                                87501.
North Carolina:      Unincorporated       The Honorable Jack Bright, Chairman,  Onslow County Planning and    Oct. 15, 2019................       370340
 Onslow (FEMA         areas of Onslow      Onslow County Board of                Development Department, 234
 Docket No.: B-       County (18-04-       Commissioners, 234 Northwest          Northwest Corridor
 1948).               3141P).              Corridor Boulevard, Jacksonville,     Boulevard, Jacksonville, NC
                                           NC 28540.                             28540.
Oklahoma:
    Kingfisher       Unincorporated       The Honorable Jeff Moss, Chairman,    Kingfisher County             Oct. 3, 2019.................       400471
     (FEMA Docket     areas of             Kingfisher County Board of            Courthouse, 101 South Main
     No.: B-1943).    Kingfisher County    Commissioners, 101 South Main         Street, Kingfisher, OK
                      (19-06-0141P).       Street, Kingfisher, OK 73750.         73750.
    Pottawatomie     City of Shawnee (19- The Honorable Richard Finley, Mayor,  City Hall, 16 West 9th        Oct. 3, 2019.................       400178
     (FEMA Docket     06-2167P).           City of Shawnee, 16 West 9th          Street, Shawnee, OK 74801.
     No.: B-1952).                         Street, Shawnee, OK 74801.
Pennsylvania:
    Montgomery       Township of Lower    The Honorable Daniel S. Bernheim,     Township Hall, 75 East        Sep. 23, 2019................       420757
     (FEMA Docket     Merion (18-03-       President, Township of Lower Merion   Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore,
     No.: B-1939).    2077P).              Board of Commissioners, 75 East       PA 19003.
                                           Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore, PA
                                           19003.
    Northumberland   Borough of Mount     The Honorable Robert Shirmer,         Borough Hall, 137 West 4th    Oct. 7, 2019.................       420738
     (FEMA Docket     Carmel (18-03-       President, Borough of Mount Carmel    Street, Mount Carmel, PA
     No.: B-1943).    1827P).              Council, 137 West 4th Street, Mount   17851.
                                           Carmel, PA 17851.

    Northumberland   Township of Mount    The Honorable Aaron Domanski,         Township Hall, 300 Laurel     Oct. 7, 2019.................       421942
     (FEMA Docket     Carmel (18-03-       Chairman, Township of Mount Carmel    Street, Mount Carmel, PA
     No.: B-1943).    1827P).              Board of Supervisors, 300 Laurel      17851.
                                           Street, Mount Carmel, PA 17851.
    Philadelphia     City of              The Honorable James Keeney, Mayor,    Department of Licenses and    Sep. 23, 2019................       420757
     (FEMA Docket     Philadelphia (18-    City of Philadelphia, 400 John F.     Inspections, 1401 John F.
     No.: B-1939).    03-2077P).           Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA   Kennedy Boulevard, Room
                                           19107.                                1130, Philadelphia, PA
                                                                                19102.
    Somerset (FEMA   Township of Elk      The Honorable Allen Green, Chairman,  Township Hall, 1507 St. Paul  Oct. 7, 2019.................       422048
     Docket No.: B-   Lick (19-03-         Township of Elk Lick, 1507 St. Paul   Road, Salisbury, PA 15558.
     1931).           0464P).              Road, Salisbury, PA 15558.
South Dakota:        City of Spearfish    The Honorable Dana Boke, Mayor, City  City Hall, 625 North 5th      Oct. 21, 2019................       460046
 Lawrence (FEMA       (19-08-0612P).       of Spearfish, 625 North 5th Street,   Street, Spearfish, SD
 Docket No.: B-                            Spearfish, SD 57783.                  57783.
 1948).
Texas:
    Bexar (FEMA      Unincorporated       The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar  Bexar County Public Works     Sep. 23, 2019................       480035
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Bexar       County Judge, 101 West Nueva          Department, 233 North Pecos-
     1948).           County (19-06-       Street, 10th Floor, San Antonio, TX   La Trinidad Street, Suite
                      0167P).              78205.                                420, San Antonio, TX 78207.
    Collin and       City of Celina (19-  The Honorable Sean Terry, Mayor,      City Hall, 142 North Ohio     Oct. 7, 2019.................       480133
     Denton (FEMA     06-0008P).           City of Celina, 142 North Ohio        Street, Celina, TX 75009.
     Docket No.: B-                        Street, Celina, TX 75009.
     1952).
    Collin (FEMA     City of McKinney     The Honorable George Fuller, Mayor,   Engineering Department, 221   Oct. 21, 2019................       480135
     Docket No.: B-   (18-06-1366P).       City of McKinney, P.O. Box 517,       North Tennessee Street,
     1948).                                McKinney, TX 75070.                   McKinney, TX 75069.
    Collin (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Chris Hill, Collin      Collin County Emergency       Oct. 7, 2019.................       480130
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Collin      County Judge, 2300 Bloomdale Road,    Management Department, 4690
     1952).           County (19-06-       Suite 4192, McKinney, TX 75071.       Community Avenue, Suite
                      0008P).                                                    200, McKinney, TX 75071.
    Denton (FEMA     Unincorporated       The Honorable Andy Eads, Denton       Denton County Public Works,   Oct. 7, 2019.................       480774
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Denton      County Judge, 110 West Hickory        Engineering Department,
     1952).           County (19-06-       Street, 2nd Floor, Denton, TX         1505 East McKinney Street,
                      0008P).              76201.                                Suite 175, Denton, TX
                                                                                76201.
    El Paso (FEMA    City of El Paso (19- The Honorable Dee Margo, Mayor, City  City Development Department,  Oct. 7, 2019.................       480214
     Docket No.: B-   06-0075P).           of El Paso, 300 North Campbell        811 Texas Avenue, El Paso,
     1943).                                Street, El Paso, TX 79901.            TX 79901.
    Harris (FEMA     City of Houston (19- The Honorable Sylvester Turner,       Floodplain Management         Oct. 21, 2019................       480296
     Docket No.: B-   06-2522P).           Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box      Department, 1002 Washington
     1948).                                1562, Houston, TX 77251.              Avenue, Houston, TX 77002.
    Montgomery       City of Conroe (19-  The Honorable Toby Powell, Mayor,     Engineering Department, 300   Oct. 7, 2019.................       480484
     (FEMA Docket     06-0333P).           City of Conroe, P.O Box 3066,         West Davis Street, Conroe,
     No.: B-1943).                         Conroe, TX 77305.                     TX 77301.
    Montgomery       Unincorporated       The Honorable Mark J. Keough,         Montgomery County             Oct. 7, 2019.................       480483
     (FEMA Docket     areas of             Montgomery County Judge, 501 North    Commissioners Court
     No.: B-1943).    Montgomery County    Thompson Street, Suite 401, Conroe,   Building, 501 North
                      (19-06-0333P).       TX 77301.                             Thompson Street, Suite 103,
                                                                                Conroe, TX 77301.
    Tarrant (FEMA    City of Crowley (18- The Honorable Billy P. Davis, Mayor,  City Hall, 201 East Main      Oct. 7, 2019.................       480591
     Docket No.: B-   06-3679P).           City of Crowley, 201 East Main        Street, Crowley, TX 76036.
     1943).                                Street, Crowley, TX 76036.
    Tarrant (FEMA    Unincorporated       The Honorable B. Glen Whitley,        Tarrant County Plaza          Oct. 7, 2019.................       480582
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Tarrant     Tarrant County Judge, 100 East        Building, 100 East
     1943).           County (18-06-       Weatherford Street, Suite 401, Fort   Weatherford Street, Suite
                      3679P).              Worth, TX 76196.                      401, Fort Worth, TX 76196.
Virginia:            City of Fairfax (19- Mr. Robert A. Stalzer, Manager, City  Public Works Department,      Oct. 11, 2019................       515524
 Independent City     03-0492P).           of Fairfax, 10455 Armstrong Street,   10455 Armstrong Street,
 (FEMA Docket No.:                         Room 316, Fairfax, VA 22030.          Room 200, Fairfax, VA
 B-1943).                                                                        22030.
Washington:
    Spokane (FEMA    City of Spokane      Mr. Mark Calhoun, Manager, City of    Building and Planning         Oct. 15, 2019................       530342
     Docket No.: B-   Valley (18-10-       Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague    Division, 10210 East
     1952).           1005P).              Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206.     Sprague Avenue, Spokane
                                                                                Valley, WA 99206.
    Spokane (FEMA    Unincorporated       Mr. Gerry Gemmill, Chief Executive    Spokane County Public Works   Oct. 15, 2019................       530174
     Docket No.: B-   areas of Spokane     Officer, Spokane County, 1116 West    Department, 1026 West
     1952).           County (18-10-       Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260.   Broadway Avenue, Spokane,
                      1005P).                                                    WA 99260.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-24883 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59998-60001]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23686]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70488; File No. SR-BOX-2013-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rules in Order To Implement the Upcoming Change to Friday
Expiration Processing and Eventual Transition to Friday Expiration for
All Monthly Expiration Contracts

September 24, 2013.
    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 September 19, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 amend the Exchange rules in order to
implement the upcoming change to Friday expiration processing and
eventual transition to Friday expiration for all monthly expiration
contracts. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules in order to implement
the upcoming change to Friday expiration processing and eventual
transition to Friday expiration for all monthly expiration contracts.
Specifically, this proposal is based on a recent filing by The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and is designed to conform the
Exchange's rules to the changes implemented by the OCC.\3\ The Exchange
believes that the industry must remain consistent in expiration dates,
and, thus, is proposing to update its rules to remain consistent with
those of OCC. The Exchange understands that other exchanges have and
will be filing similar rules to effect this industry-wide initiative.
Additionally, these changes are based on a proposal recently submitted
by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69772 (June 17,
2013), 78 FR 37645 (June 21, 2013)(Order approving SR-OCC-2013-04).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70372 (September 11,
2013)(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of SR-NYSEARCA-
2013-88).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCC Proposal
    Most option contracts (``standard expiration contracts'') currently
expire at the ``expiration time'' (11:59 p.m. Eastern Time) on the
Saturday following the third Friday of the specified expiration month
(the ``expiration date'').\5\ As a result of the OCC's rule change, the
expiration date for monthly expiration contracts would be changed to
the third Friday of the expiration month. The expiration time would
continue to be 11:59 p.m. ET on the expiration date. The expiration
date change would apply only to monthly expiration contracts expiring
after February 1, 2015, and, in this regard, the Exchange does not
propose to change the expiration date for any outstanding option
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., the definition of ``expiration time'' in Article
I of the OCC By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change will apply only to series of option contracts opened for
trading after the effective date of the OCC rule change and having
expiration dates later than February 1, 2015. Option contracts having
non-standard expiration dates (``non-standard expiration contracts'')
will be unaffected by this proposed rule change, except that flexibly
structured (``FLEX'') options having expiration dates later than
February 1, 2015 cannot expire on a Saturday unless they are specified
by OCC as grandfathered.
    In order to provide a smooth transition to the proposed Friday
expiration, the Exchange, together with other option exchanges and the
OCC, began moving the expiration exercise procedures to Friday for all
monthly expiration contracts on June 21, 2013, even though the
contracts will continue to expire on Saturday. After February 1, 2015,
virtually all monthly expiration contracts would actually expire on
Friday. The only monthly expiration contracts that would expire on a
Saturday after February 1, 2015 would be certain options that were
listed prior to the effectiveness of the OCC's proposal, and a limited
number of options that may be listed prior to necessary systems changes
of the Exchange and the other options exchanges, which were completed
in August 2013. The Exchange, along with other option exchanges, has
agreed that, once these systems changes are made, it will not list any
additional options with Saturday expiration dates falling after
February 1, 2015.
Background
    Saturday was established as the monthly expiration date for OCC-
cleared options primarily in order to allow sufficient time for
processing of option exercises, including correction of errors, while
the markets were closed and positions remained fixed. However,
improvements in technology and long experience have rendered Saturday
expiration processing inefficient. Indeed, many non-monthly expiration
contracts are currently traded with business day expiration dates.
These include FLEX options and quarterly, monthly, and weekly options.
Expiration exercise processing for these non-monthly expiration
contracts occurs on a more compressed timeframe and with somewhat
different procedures than Saturday expiration processing for monthly
expiration contracts.
    It has been a long-term goal of OCC and its clearing members to
move the expiration process for all monthly expiration contracts from
Saturday to Friday night. Eliminating Saturday expirations will allow
OCC to streamline the expiration process for all monthly expiration
contracts and increase operational efficiencies for OCC and its
clearing members. Furthermore, it will compress the operational
timeframe for processing the options expirations such that clearing
members will be required to reconcile options trades on the trade date,
which will enhance intra-day risk management of cleared trades by the
clearing member

and promote real-time trade date reconciliation and position balancing
by clearing members.
    Industry groups, clearing members and the option exchanges have
been active participants in planning for the transition to the Friday
expiration. In March 2012, OCC began to discuss moving monthly
expiration contracts to Friday expiration dates with industry groups,
including two Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'') committees, the Operations and Technology Steering
Committee and the Options Committee, and at two major industry
conferences, the SIFMA Operations Conference and the Options Industry
Conference. OCC also discussed the project with the Intermarket
Surveillance Group and at an OCC Operations Roundtable. In each case,
the initiative received broad support.
    Friday expiration processing is also consistent with the long-
standing rules and procedures of the options exchanges and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), which generally
provide that exercise decisions with respect to expiring monthly
expiration contracts must be made by, and exercise instructions may not
be accepted from customers after, 5:30 p.m. ET on the business day
preceding expiration (usually Friday).\6\ Brokerage firms may set
earlier cutoff times for customers submitting exercise notices.
Clearing members of OCC are permitted to submit exercise instructions
after the cutoff time (``supplementary exercises'') only in case of
errors or other unusual situations, and may be subject to fines or
disciplinary actions.\7\ The Exchange believes that the extended period
between cutoff time and expiration of options is no longer necessary
given modern technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 2360(b)(23)(A)(iii), which provides
that ``[o]ption holders have until 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time (`ET') on
the business day immediately prior to the expiration date to make a
final exercise decision to exercise or not exercise an expiring
option. Members may not accept exercise instructions for customer or
noncustomer accounts after 5:30 p.m. ET.''
    \7\ See OCC Rule 805(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transition Period
    Based on significant dialogue between the Exchange, other option
exchanges, the OCC and its clearing members regarding the move to
Friday expiration, the Exchange believes that the adoption of Friday
expiration for monthly expiration contracts is best accomplished
through an appropriate transition period, during which processing
activity for all options, whether expiring on Friday or Saturday, has
moved to Friday, followed by a change in the expiration day for new
series of options. In May 2012, it was determined that Friday, June 21,
2013, would be an appropriate date on which to move expiration
processing from Saturday to Friday night.
    Accordingly, and based on the OCC's related proposal, beginning
June 21, 2013, Friday expiration processing is in effect for all
expiring monthly expiration contracts, regardless of whether the
contract's actual expiration date is Friday or Saturday. However, for
contracts having a Saturday expiration date, exercise requests received
after Friday expiration processing is complete, but before the Saturday
contract expiration time, will continue to be processed, without fines
or penalties, so long as they are submitted in accordance with OCC's
procedures governing such requests. After the transition period and the
expiration of all existing Saturday-expiring options, expiration
processing would be a single operational process and would run on
Friday night for all monthly expiration contracts.
Friday Expiration Processing Schedule
    Previously, expiration processing for monthly expiration contracts
began on Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m. Central Time (``CT'') and was
completed at approximately noon CT when margin and settlement reports
are available. The window for submission of instructions in accordance
with OCC's exercise-by-exception procedures under OCC Rule 805(d) was
open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. CT on Saturday morning.\8\ As proposed
by OCC, the window for submission of exercise-by-exception instructions
is now open from 6:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. CT on Friday evening.\9\ Friday
expiration processing for monthly expiration contracts therefore now
begins at 6:00 p.m. CT on Friday evening and ends at approximately 2:00
a.m. CT on Saturday morning when margin and settlement reports would be
available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OCC's exercise-by-exception procedures are described in OCC
Rule 805(d), which generally provides that each clearing member will
automatically be deemed to have submitted an exercise notice
immediately prior to the expiration time for all in-the-money option
contracts unless the clearing member has instructed OCC otherwise in
a written exercise notice.
    \9\ See supra, note 3. The exercise-by-exception window for
weekly and quarterly expiration options is from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. CT.
    \10\ The new expiration schedule for Friday expiration
processing is similar to the expiration schedule for weekly options,
which begins at 6:00 p.m. CT on Friday evening and ends at 11:30
p.m. CT on Friday evening. All timeframes would be set forth in
OCC's procedures and subject to change based on OCC's experience
with Friday expiration processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exercises for monthly expiration contracts with Saturday
expirations must be allowed under the terms of the contracts. However,
in order to accommodate the proposed new expiration schedule, the OCC
also proposed to shorten the period of time in which clearing members
may submit a supplementary exercise notice under OCC Rule 805(b). In
addition, OCC amended Rule 801 to eliminate the ability of clearing
members to revoke or modify exercise notices submitted to OCC. This
change, along with the change in the processing timeline discussed
above, more closely aligns OCC's expiration processing procedures with
self-regulatory organization rules, including those of the Exchange,
under which exchange members must submit exercise instructions by 5:30
p.m. ET on Friday and may not accept exercise instructions from
customers after 5:30 p.m. ET on Friday. Accordingly, this change does
not represent a departure from current practices for clearing members
or their customers.
Grandfathering of Certain Options Series
    Certain option contracts have already been listed on participant
exchanges, including the Exchange, with Saturday expiration dates as
distant as December 2016. Additionally, until participant exchanges,
including the Exchange, complete certain systems enhancements, it is
possible that additional option contracts may be listed with Saturday
expiration dates beyond February 1, 2015. For these contracts,
transitioning to a Friday expiration for newly-listed option contracts
expiring after February 1, 2015 would create a situation under which
certain option open interest would expire on a Saturday while other
option open interest would expire on a Friday in the same expiration
month. OCC clearing members have expressed a clear preference to not
have a mix of option open interest in any particular month.
Accordingly, the Exchange and other option exchanges have agreed not to
permit the listing of, and OCC will not accept for clearance, any new
option contracts with a Friday expiration if existing option contracts
of the same series expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of
the same month. However, Friday expiration processing will be in effect
for these Saturday expiration contracts. As with monthly expiration
contracts during the transition period, exercise requests received
after Friday expiration

processing is complete, but before the Saturday contract expiration
time, will continue to be processed without fines or penalties.
Proposed Amendments to the Exchange's Rules
    In order to implement the change to Friday expiration processing
and eventual transition to Friday expiration for all monthly expiration
contracts, the Exchange proposes to amend certain of its rules, as
described below. The Exchange is also proposing, with this filing, to
replace any reference in the purpose section of any past Exchange rule
filings or previously released circulars to any expiration date other
than Friday for a standard options contract with the new Friday
standard. Essentially, the Exchange is now proposing to replace any
historic references to expiration dates to be replaced with the
proposed Friday expiration.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9000 (Exercise of Options
Contracts) in several areas, each of which is designed to differentiate
between Friday and Saturday expirations. First, the Exchange proposes
to specify in Rule 9000(b) that special procedures apply to the
exercise of equity options on the business day of their expiration
(i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract
expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the
case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day before their
expiration. Second, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 9000(c)
that, regarding exercise cut-off times, option holders have until 5:30
p.m. ET on the business day of their expiration (i.e., for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday
expirations, on the business day immediately prior to the expiration
date. Third, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 9000(h) that the
advance notice described therein is applicable if provided by the
Exchange on or before 5:30 p.m. ET on the business day (i.e., on
Thursday) immediately prior to the business day of expiration (i.e.,
for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring
on a day that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for
Saturday expirations, the business day immediately prior to the last
business day before the expiration date (i.e., Thursday for Saturday
expirations). Fourth, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule
9000(i)(2) that the reference therein to ``unusual circumstances''
includes, but is not limited to, a significant news announcement
concerning the underlying security of an option contract that is
scheduled to be released just after the close on the business day the
option contract expires (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and
as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, the business day
immediately prior to expiration. Fifth, the Exchange proposes to
specify in Rule 9000(l)(8)(ii) that exercises of expiring American-
style, cash-settled index options are not prohibited on the business
day of their expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case
of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and
as is currently the case for Saturday expirations, on the last business
day prior to their expiration.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6090(c) (Procedures for Adding
and Deleting Strike Prices) with respect to the permitted timing for
adding new series of index option contracts so as to differentiate
between Friday and Saturday expirations. The Exchange proposes to
specify that new series of index option contracts may be added up to,
but not on or after, the fourth business day prior to expiration for an
option contract expiring on a business day (i.e., up to, but not on or
after, the opening of trading on Monday morning for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day, and as is currently the case for Saturday
expirations, the fifth business day prior to expiration.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5050 (Series of Options
Contracts Open for Trading) to differentiate between Friday and
Saturday expirations. Specifically, the Exchange would specify that
additional series of individual stock options may be added in unusual
market conditions until the close of trading on the business day prior
to expiration in the case of an option contract expiring on a business
day (i.e., Thursday for a Friday expiration), or, in the case of an
option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is
currently the case for Saturday expirations, until the close of trading
on the second business day prior to expiration (i.e., until the close
of trading on Thursday for Saturday expirations).
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3170 (Other Restrictions on
Option Transactions and Exercises) with respect to certain timing for
restrictions on the exercise of option contracts. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to specify that the 10-business-day period referenced
in Rule 3170(a)(2) includes the expiration date for an option contract
that expires on a business day. The Exchange also proposes to specify
that, with respect to index options, restrictions on exercise may be in
effect until the opening of business on the business day of their
expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is
currently the case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day
before the expiration date. Finally, the Exchange proposes to specify
in Rule 3170(a)(3)(B) that exercises of expiring American-style, cash-
settled index options are not prohibited on the business day of their
expiration (i.e., for Friday expirations), or, in the case of an option
contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, and as is
currently the case for Saturday expirations, on the last business day
prior to their expiration
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\11\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, in that it 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of the industry will protect all participants in
the market by eliminating confusion. The proposed changes thus allow
for a more orderly market by allowing all options markets, including
the clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for standard
options. In addition, the proposed changes will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning a pivotal part of the options processing to
be consistent industry wide. If the industry were to differ, investors
would suffer from confusion and be more vulnerable to violate different
exchange rules. The proposed changes do not permit unfair
discrimination between any Participants

because they are applied to all Participants equally. In the
alternative, the Exchange believes that it helps all Participants by
keeping the Exchange consistent with OCC practices and those of other
Exchanges.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act because the extended period between cutoff time
and expiration of options is no longer necessary given modern
technology. In this regard, and based on significant dialogue between
the Exchange, other option exchanges, the OCC and its clearing members
regarding the move to Friday expiration, the Exchange believes that the
adoption of Friday expiration for monthly expiration contracts is best
accomplished through an appropriate transition period during which
processing activity for all options, whether expiring on Friday or
Saturday, has moved to Friday, followed by a change in the expiration
day for new series of options.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is substantially similar
to a filing submitted by NYSE Arca.\13\ The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change will impose a burden on intramarket
competition because it will be applied to all Participants equally. In
addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will
impose any burden to intermarket competition because it will be applied
industry wide and apply to all market participants. The proposed rule
change is not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether
between the Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants.
Instead, the proposed rule change is designed to allow OCC to
streamline the expiration process for all monthly expiration contracts
and increase operational efficiencies for OCC and its clearing members.
The proposed rule change also will allow OCC and its clearing members
to reduce operational risk. Moreover, OCC has coordinated moving to a
Friday night expiration process with options industry participants,
including the Exchange, and has also obtained assurance from all such
participants that they are able to adhere to OCC's Friday night
expiration implementation schedule. Therefore, the Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change would impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change. The Exchange notes, however, that a favorable
comment was submitted to the OCC filing.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \16\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-BOX-2013-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BOX-2013-45. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BOX-2013-45 and should be
submitted on or before October 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23686 Filed 9-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P