[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24420-24424]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10968]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0666; FRL-9994-13-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve
South Carolina's June 18, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this
action, EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina's SIP
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the State
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0666 at http://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

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, 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. Mr. Adams can also be reached
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> and via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08
parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27,
2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes),
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision,
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two
provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This
proposed action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for South
Carolina for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate
rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
    \2\ See 83 FR 48239 (September 24, 2018); 81 FR 56512 (August
22, 2016); 80 FR 48255 (August 12, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March 18,
2015); and 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On June 18, 2018, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) provided a SIP submittal \3\ to EPA to
address the interstate transport requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the South Carolina SIP. South Carolina made this
submission to certify that its SIP contains adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions activities within the State which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state, and therefore, adequately
addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ South Carolina's certification is based on
air quality monitoring and modeling data, SIP-approved and state
provisions regulating emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)) within the
State, and an analysis of recent trends in emissions of ozone
precursors (VOCs and NOX) from South Carolina sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 24, 2011, South Carolina submitted a state
implementation plan revision to address the 110(a)(1) and (2)
requirements of the CAA including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On April 16, 2013, the state
withdrew its good neighbor SIP submission. See August 29, 2016
Memorandum from Gobeail McKinley re ``Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS,'' available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0509; July 17,
2012 South Carolina SIP Submittal for the 2008 8-hour Ozone
Infrastructure Requirements, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694-0002.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rulemaking that
finalized findings of failure to submit with regard to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states,
including South Carolina, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See
80 FR 39961. The findings of failure to submit established a two-
year deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the interstate
transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA
promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that
meets these requirements. Additional background on the findings of
failure to submit--including EPA's findings related to South
Carolina--can be found in the preamble to the final rule. See 80 FR
39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016, EPA took
steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern states
\6\ by finalizing an update to the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(2011 CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\7\ The
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May
through September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of
ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The rule also determined that
emissions from 14 states (including South Carolina) will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined
that it need not require further emission reductions from sources in
those states to address the good neighbor provision as to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4,
2015, requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality
modeling results that were used for the proposed CSAPR Update. See
80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
    \7\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
Final Rule (2011 CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update),
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. This framework
established the following four-step process to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred
to as receptors, that are

expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2)
determine which upwind states impact these identified problems in
amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the downwind air quality
problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air quality problems,
identify upwind emissions, if any, that will significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS; and (4)
reduce the identified upwind emissions for states that are found to
have emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by adopting permanent
and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the CSAPR Update, EPA used
this four-step framework to determine whether states in the east will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of downwind air quality. As explained below, the CSAPR Update's four-
step analysis supports the conclusions provided in SC DHEC's June 18,
2018, interstate transport SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS that the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, in step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were at or above
a specific threshold. EPA determined that one percent was an
appropriate threshold to use in this analysis because there were
important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified
nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states at
that threshold.\8\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). For the CSAPR
Update, EPA applied an air quality screening threshold of 0.75 ppb
(equivalent to one percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to
identify linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors. States with impacts below the one-percent
threshold were considered not to contribute to identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore would not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal
to or exceeded the one-percent threshold, that state was considered
``linked'' to the downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and
the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both
air quality and cost considerations, to determine whether any emissions
reductions might be necessary to address the state's obligation
pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); see also
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'' for
the 2011 CSAPR, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rulemaking for the CSAPR Update, the air
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively),
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each
state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were
performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United
States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and
Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR
Update for South Carolina inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state
linkages to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See CSAPR Update Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD).
    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated
that South Carolina's largest impact on any projected downwind
nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.15 ppb and South Carolina's
largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site in
2017 was 0.30 ppb.\9\ These values are below the one percent screening
threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages
between South Carolina and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and
Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CSAPR Update addressed the decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015),
remanding for reconsideration certain state ozone season NOX
emission budgets from the original CSAPR (including South Carolina's)
with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\10\ EPA removed South
Carolina from the CSAPR ozone season trading program beginning in
2017.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Among other things, the decision remanded CSAPR without
vacatur for reconsideration of the EPA's emission budgets for
certain states. The court declared invalid the CSAPR Phase 2
NOX ozone season emission budgets of 11 states, including
South Carolina, holding that those budgets over-control with respect
to the downwind air quality problems to which those states were
linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Because the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
more stringent than the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the CSAPR Update modeling
necessarily indicates that South Carolina is also not linked to any
remaining air quality concerns with respect to the 1997 ozone
standard for which the states were regulated in the original CSAPR.
For South Carolina, EPA therefore relieved sources in the State from
the obligation to comply with the NOX ozone season
trading program in response to the remand.
    \11\ See 81 FR 74523-74524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the South Carolina submittal?

    As mentioned in section I, South Carolina's June 18, 2018,
submittal certifies that emission activities from the State will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008

8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the following reasons: (1)
Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the CSAPR Update indicates that
South Carolina's impact on any downwind receptor is far less than 1
percent of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC precursor emissions
and monitored ozone concentrations in South Carolina have decreased
since 2002; and (3) South Carolina has in place both SIP-approved and
state provisions that regulate ozone precursors in the State. Based on
an assessment of this information, EPA proposes to approve South
Carolina's SIP submission because it has adequate provisions to ensure
that emissions from sources within the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    South Carolina's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling,
which showed South Carolina's impact on downwind receptors for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS as far less than one percent of the standard (i.e.,
0.75 ppb). South Carolina cites to EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update
Modeling TSD where the modeling indicated that South Carolina's largest
impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was
0.15 ppb and the largest impact on any projected downwind maintenance-
only site was 0.30 ppb, both of which are below 0.75 ppb, the one
percent threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA concluded in
the CSAPR Update that South Carolina's emissions will not contribute to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and therefore, did not
finalize a FIP that required additional emission reductions from South
Carolina. Accordingly, in the CSAPR Update, EPA made a final
determination that South Carolina emissions will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
other states and that sources in the State are not required to further
reduce emissions pursuant to the good neighbor provision with respect
to this standard.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 81 FR 74506. EPA is not reopening for comment final
determinations made in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to
support that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Carolina's submittal also notes that total annual
NOX emissions and total annual VOC emissions in South
Carolina have decreased by 47 percent and 36 percent, respectively,
between 2002 and 2014. South Carolina indicates that monitored ozone
concentrations in the State are also trending downward, due to the
success of federal and state air regulations, which correlates to the
decline in ozone precursor emissions.
    SC DHEC identified regulations that have been approved into the
South Carolina SIP to provide for the control of NOX and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which are precursors that contribute
to ambient ozone concentrations. These regulations include Regulations
61-62.5, Standard 7--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and 61-
62.5, Standard 7.1--Nonattainment New Source Review, which provide for
the implementation of a permitting program required under Title I,
Parts C and D of the CAA for sources of NOX. The permitting
requirements help ensure that no new or modified sources in the State
subject to these permitting regulations will significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. SC DHEC also identified SIP-approved Regulation 61-62.1
Definitions and General Requirements, which provide enforceable
emission limits and other control measure, means, and techniques. SIP-
approved Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, Control of Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) establishes emission standards and compliance (testing
and monitoring) requirements respectively for stationary sources of air
pollution emissions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, SC DHEC
also identified state-only provisions of the South Carolina Code
Section 48-1-10 Pollution Control Act and Section 1-23-10 State
Agency Rule Making and Adjudication of Contested Cases as
regulations that the State is implementing which provide for the
control of NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Carolina further identified the following regulations that
provide for the implementation of VOC emissions controls: Regulation
61-62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan and New Source
Performance Standards and Regulation 61-62.61, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories. While
these rules are not approved into the federally-approved SIP, they
incorporate the federal requirements of 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 by
reference.
    Based on the information presented herein, EPA proposes to approve
South Carolina's June 18, 2018, SIP submission on grounds that it
addresses the State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the EPA has found that the State
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's June 18, 2018, SIP
submission demonstrating that South Carolina's SIP is sufficient to
address the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA requests
comment on this proposed approval of South Carolina's SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).

Because this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this proposed action for the State of South
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, this action
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Trial law. The Catawba Indian Nation (CIN) Reservation is
located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120
(Settlement Act), ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' The CIN also retains authority to impose regulations
applying higher environmental standards to the Reservation than those
imposed by state law or local governing bodies, in accordance with the
Settlement Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 14, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-10968 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68876-68877]
[DOCID:fr06de07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF08-5031-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

November 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 5, 2007, the Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested in the Deputy
Secretary, by the Department of Energy's Delegation Order No. 00-
037.00, submitted for confirmation and approval on a final basis, Rate
Schedules P-SED-F9, for firm power, and P-SED-F9P for firm peaking
power from the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin--Eastern Division, effective
January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2012.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 28, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23631 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4477-4480]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0782; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-011-AD;
Amendment 39-16181; AD 2010-02-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -
223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
Series Airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313
Series Airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the MLG [main
landing gear], the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked.
Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam
was also found cracked.
* * * * *
    A second bogie beam crack has subsequently been found on another
aircraft, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial
paint damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the aircraft departing the runway or to the bogie detaching from the
aircraft or gear collapses, which would all constitute unsafe
conditions at speeds above 30 knots.
* * * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 4, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of March 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2009
(74 FR 45781). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the MLG [main
landing gear], the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked.
Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam
was also found cracked.
    Laboratory investigation indicates that an overload event has
occurred and no fatigue propagation of the crack was evident. An
investigation is still underway to establish the root cause of this
overload.
    A second bogie beam crack has subsequently been found on another
aircraft, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial
paint damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the aircraft departing the runway or to the bogie detaching from the
aircraft or gear collapses, which would all constitute unsafe
conditions at speeds above 30 knots.
    As a precautionary measure, this AD requires detailed
inspections under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams and, in
case deformation or damage is detected, to apply the associated
repair.

The one-time inspections consist of the following:
     Inspection for corrosion and damage to the paint and
cadmium plate of the sliding piston subassembly.
     Inspection for cracking and deformation of the top and
bottom surfaces and bolt holes of the bogie stop pad subassembly and
bracket.
     Inspection for cracking, corrosion, and damage to
protective treatments, and deformation of the bogie beam surface of the
bogie beam subassembly where the bogie stop pad subassembly has been
removed, and a magnetic particle non-destructive test inspection of the
bogie beam assembly where the bogie stop pad subassembly has been
removed.
    Corrective actions include repairing protective treatments,
removing corrosion, and replacing the bogie stop pad if necessary. For
airplanes on which a crack or deformation in the bogie beam is found,
corrective actions include contacting Messier-Dowty Limited and/or
Airbus for instructions for repair, and repairing before further
flight.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Correction of Labor Estimate

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member Northwest
Airlines (NWA), states that the labor estimates are significantly
underestimated in the proposed AD. NWA states that the NPRM estimate of
2 work-hours should be revised to specify 18 work-hours, based on work-
hours listed in the vendor service bulletins.
    We agree that the labor estimates are underestimated. The service
bulletins cited in the proposed AD call for a total of 4 work-hours,
but only to get access. The Airbus service bulletins refer to the
vendor service bulletins for inspection time and repair. The vendor
service bulletins identify up to 8 work-hours per bogie beam for a
total of up to 16 work-hours for the inspection per airplane. However,
we have not included the time to perform on-condition actions, such as
repair. The ``Cost of Compliance'' section has been changed
accordingly.

Clarification of Compliance Times and Affected Airplanes

    The ATA, on behalf of its member NWA, states that clarification of
the compliance time is needed in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii),
and (f)(1)(iv) of the proposed AD. Where the paragraphs specify time or
flight cycles on the new or overhauled bogie beam, the operator
proposes to refer to the time or flight cycles from the installation
date of the new or overhauled bogie beam in service.
    We agree and have made changes to paragraphs (f)(1)(ii),
(f)(1)(iii), and (f)(1)(iv) of this AD accordingly. Similar changes
have been made to paragraphs (f)(1)(v) and (f)(1)(vi) of this AD.

Explanation of Changes Made To This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 52 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 16 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $66,560, or $1,280 per product.

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

    We determined that 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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 adding the following new AD:

2010-02-10 AIRBUS: Amendment 39-16181. Docket No. FAA-2009-0782;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-011-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 4,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
series airplanes; Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313
series airplanes; and Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes; all serial
numbers; certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the MLG [main
landing gear], the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked.
Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam
was also found cracked.
    Laboratory investigation indicates that an overload event has
occurred and no fatigue propagation of the crack was evident. An
investigation is still underway to establish the root cause of this
overload.
    A second bogie beam crack has subsequently been found on another
aircraft, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial
paint damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the aircraft departing the runway or to the bogie detaching from the
aircraft or gear collapses, which would all constitute unsafe
conditions at speeds above 30 knots.
    As a precautionary measure, this AD requires detailed
inspections under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams and, in
case deformation or damage is detected, to apply the associated
repair.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(v), or
(f)(1)(vi) of this AD, perform one-time detailed inspections of both
main landing gear bogie beams in the region of the bogie stop pad
for detection of deformation and damage, and apply the applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with instructions defined in the
Airbus mandatory service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, as
applicable. Do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight.
    (i) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles or
less from the first flight with the original bogie beam as of the
effective date of this AD: Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles or
22 months on the original bogie beam, whichever occurs first, but
not later than 40 months from first flight.
    (ii) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles or
less from the installation date of a new bogie beam in service as of
the effective date of this AD: Not earlier than 2,500 flight cycles
or 22 months from the installation date of the new bogie beam,
whichever occurs first, but no later than 40 months from the
installation date of a new bogie beam in service.
    (iii) Airplanes with 22 months or less and 2,500 flight cycles
or less from the installation date of an overhauled bogie beam in
service as of the effective date of this AD: Not earlier than 2,500
flight cycles or 22 months from the installation date of the
overhauled bogie beam in service, whichever occurs first, but no
later than 40 months from the installation date of the overhauled
bogie beam in service.
    (iv) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500
flight cycles from the first flight with the original bogie beam, as
of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (v) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500 flight
cycles from the installation date of a new bogie beam in service, as
of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (vi) Airplanes with more than 22 months or more than 2,500
flight cycles from the installation date of an overhauled bogie beam
in service, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD.

                       Table 1--Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Use Airbus
                                  Mandatory
         For model--               Service               Dated--
                                  Bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -  A330-32-3220...  October 10, 2008.
 243, -301, -302, -303, -321,
 -322, -323, -341, -342, -343
 series airplanes.
A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -  A340-32-4264...  October 10, 2008.
 312, -313 series airplanes.
A340-541, -642 airplanes.....  A340-32-5087...  October 10, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Report the results of the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, including no findings, to Airbus, Customer
Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex France; Attn: SEDCC1 Technical Data and Documentation
Services; Fax (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
at the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection is done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective
date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0223, dated December 15, 2008, and the
Airbus mandatory service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information contained in Table 2 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

               Table 2--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airbus Mandatory  Service Bulletin--               Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-32-3220.........................  October 10, 2008.
A340-32-4264.........................  October 10, 2008.
A340-32-5087.........................  October 10, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 14, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-1277 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                         Notes from Meeting with HDMA

Attended by:
HDMA Staff:	Allison Tuszynski and Anita Ducca

Other Staff:	Tish Pahl, OFW Law
		Bob Fensterheim, RegNet Environmental Services

EPA Staff:	Mary Jackson and Kristin Fitzgerald

Date:	January 7, 2014

EPA met with representatives from the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA), their outside counsel and consultant.   They discussed their members' roles in the distribution and reverse distribution of pharmaceuticals.  They also discussed the recently enacted law, the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA).  They indicated that in 2010, approximately 2% of pharmaceuticals are returned to reverse distributors.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 230 (Friday, December 3, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68566-68568]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0784]
RIN 1625-AA11

Safety Zone; Oil Pipeline Repairs; San Pedro Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the oil pipeline repair operations in the vicinity of a damaged
pipeline, off the coast of Orange County and near San Pedro Bay, CA.
The safety zone is necessary to reduce significant hazards to vessels,
the harbor, and the public during ongoing pipeline repair and oil
recovery operations. Entry of persons or vessels into this temporary
safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Los Angeles--Long Beach, or her designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 3,
2021 11:59 p.m. on December 8, 2021. For purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 12:00 a.m. on November 24, 2021 until
December 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0784 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Maria Wiener, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule to ensure the safety of response personnel
and mariners during repairs of the damaged pipeline, as well as the
potential oil recovery of said pipeline. It is impracticable to publish
an NPRM, because we must establish this safety zone by November 24,
2021, due to immediate action needed to minimize potential danger to
the public during oil recovery operations for the discharge of oil from
pipeline.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with
the pipeline repair operations for the damaged pipeline.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los
Angeles--Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated
with the pipeline repair and potential oil recovery operations in the
vicinity of the damaged pipeline will be a safety concern for anyone
within the following coordinates: 33[deg]39.320' N, 118[deg]06.851' W;
33[deg]39.141' N, 118[deg]06.247' W; 33[deg]38.632' N, 118[deg]06.453'
W; 33[deg]38.809' N, 118[deg]07.064' W. This rule is necessary to
safeguard the public during repair operations in response to an
emergency situation; it would be impracticable for the Coast Guard to
provide a public comment period on the rule.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced November
24, 2021 through December 8, 2021. The safety zone will encompass all
navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor in an area bound by
the following coordinates: 33[deg]39.320' N, 118[deg]06.851' W;
33[deg]39.141' N, 118[deg]06.247' W; 33[deg]38.632' N, 118[deg]06.453'
W; 33[deg]38.809' N, 118[deg]07.064' W. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from

the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements
of Executive Order.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which
will impact a small designated area of Newport Beach in the vicinity of
the repair operations. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the
rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will be enforced from November 24, 2021 through
December 8, 2021, within the following coordinates: 33[deg]39.320' N,
118[deg]06.851' W; 33[deg]39.141' N, 118[deg]06.247' W; 33[deg]38.632'
N, 118[deg]06.453' W; 33[deg]38.809' N, 118[deg]07.064' W. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165. T11-085 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-085   Safety Zone; Oil Pipeline Repairs, San Pedro Bay,
CA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone encompasses all navigable waters from
the surface to the sea floor in an area of

the following coordinates: 33[deg]39.320' N, 118[deg]06.851' W;
33[deg]39.141' N, 118[deg]06.247' W; 33[deg]38.632' N, 118[deg]06.453'
W; 33[deg]38.809' N, 118[deg]07.064' W.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long
Beach (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call the 24-hour Command
Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zone must comply with all
lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from November
24, 2021, through December 8, 2021, or as announced via local Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: November 24, 2021.
R.E. Ore,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles, Long
Beach.
[FR Doc. 2021-26203 Filed 12-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52815]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21550]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-28, OMB Control No. 3235-0032]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-1(b).

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-
1(b) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(b)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17f-1(b) under the Exchange Act requires approximately 15,517
entities in the securities industry to register in the Lost and Stolen
Securities Program (``Program''). Registration fulfills a statutory
requirement that entities report and inquire about missing, lost,
counterfeit, or stolen securities. Registration also allows entities in
the securities industry to gain access to a confidential database that
stores information for the Program.
    The Commission staff estimates that 10 new entities will register
in the Program each year. The staff estimates that the average number
of hours necessary to comply with Rule 17f-1(b) is one-half hour.
Accordingly, the staff estimates that the total annual burden for all
participants is 5 hours (10 x one-half hour). The Commission staff
estimates that compliance staff work at subject entities results in an
internal cost of compliance, at an estimated hourly wage of $283, of
$141.50 per year per entity (.5 hours x $283 per hour = $141.50 per
year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal cost of compliance is
approximately $1,415 ($141.50 x 10= $1,415).
    This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: 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) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 26, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21550 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33854-33858]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11876]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95001; File No. SR-MIAX-2022-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor

May 27, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 May 13, 2022, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III 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 is filing a proposal to amend Exchange 519, MIAX Order
Monitor.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order
Monitor to (i) establish an Exchange default Threshold Setting for
market orders \3\ to sell an option when the national best bid is zero;
(ii) provide that a Member \4\ may supply their own pre-set value to be
used as the Threshold Setting; (iii) reorganize the rule text for ease
of reference; and (iv) adopt new rule text to add additional detail
regarding the Exchange's process for evaluating and reevaluating market
orders to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A market order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of
option contracts at the best price available at the time of
execution. See Exchange Rule 516(a).
    \4\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, in order to avoid the occurrence of potential obvious or
catastrophic errors on the Exchange the MIAX Order Monitor will prevent
certain orders from executing or being placed on the Book \5\ at prices
outside pre-set standard limits. Beginning after the Opening Process
\6\ is complete, the MIAX Order Monitor will be operational each
trading day until the close of trading.\7\ Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(i)
provides that if the Exchange upon initial receipt or reevaluation
evaluates a market order to sell an option when the national best bid
is zero and the Exchange's disseminated offer is equal to or less than
$0.10, the System \8\ will convert the market order to sell to a limit
order to sell with a limit price of one Minimum Trading Increment.\9\
In this case, such sell orders will automatically be placed on the Book
in time priority and will be displayed at the appropriate Minimum Price
Variation.\10\ Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(ii) provides that if the
Exchange upon initial receipt or reevaluation evaluates a market order
to sell an option when the national best bid is zero and the national
best offer is greater than $0.10, the System will cancel the market
order to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Book'' means the electronic book of buy and sell
orders and quotes maintained by the System. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 503.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 519(a).
    \8\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 510(b).
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 510(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to allow Members to determine their own
pre-set value to be used as the threshold setting (``Threshold
Setting'') that the Exchange will use when evaluating market orders to
sell when the national best bid is zero and the national best offer is
less than, equal to, or greater than, the Threshold Setting. Members
are not constrained by the Exchange in determining their Threshold
Setting and may set the threshold at any value in accordance to their
business and risk tolerances. Members will communicate their desired
threshold value to the Exchange's Help Desk \11\ in a form and manner
to be determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular. The Exchange will establish a default Threshold
Setting of $0.10 (the current setting) and communicate its value to
Members via Regulatory Circular.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Help Desk'' means the Exchange's control room
consisting of Exchange staff authorized to make certain
determinations on behalf of the Exchange. The Help Desk shall report
to and be supervised by a senior executive of the Exchange. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \12\ The Exchange proposes to convert its current $0.10
threshold setting to the Exchange default Threshold Setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (i) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, for the purposes of this Rule a
Member may establish a pre-set value to be used as the Threshold
Setting by communicating its value to the Exchange's Help Desk in a
form and manner to be determined by the Exchange and communicated via
Regulatory Circular. The Exchange will establish a default Threshold
Setting of $0.10 and communicate its value to Members via Regulatory
Circular. If a Member does not establish a Threshold Setting the
Exchange default value will be used. Currently, the Exchange uses a
value of $0.10 as its threshold value for purposes of evaluating or
reevaluating market orders to sell when the national best bid is
zero.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (ii) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange receives a market
order to sell an option when the national best bid is zero and the
national best offer is less than or equal to the Threshold Setting, the
System will convert the market order to sell, to a limit order to sell,
with a limit price of one Minimum Trading Increment.\14\ The Exchange
proposes to use the national best offer as the reference price in
determining how to handle a market order to sell when the national best
bid is zero as the national best offer better represents the current
market conditions. This provision is consistent with the operation of
the current rule, however the Threshold Setting used for evaluation
purposes under the Exchange's proposal may now be either the Exchange's
default setting of $0.10 or the Member's Threshold Setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum
Trading Increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (iii) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange reevaluates \15\ a
market order to sell an option when the resulting national best bid is
zero and either the trade price, route price, or national best offer is
less than or equal to the Threshold Setting, the System will convert
the market order to sell, to a limit order to sell, with a limit price
of one Minimum Trading Increment. In the event the Exchange receives a
market order to sell and the Exchange is zero bid but an away market is
not, the Exchange will route the order to that away exchange at the
away market price, the ``route price.'' For the purposes of this rule,
the execution price of a trade in the subject series is

considered the ``trade price.'' The Exchange uses the route price,
trade price, or national best offer to determine the proper disposition
of a market order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A reevaluation of an order occurs when the order has been
routed to an away exchange and is returned to the Exchange
partially, or completely, unfilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current paragraph (i) describes the initial evaluation and
reevaluation process of a market order to sell whereas each process is
given separate treatment under this proposal. Specifically, new
proposed paragraph (ii) describes the initial evaluation process of a
market order to sell when the national best bid is zero and new
proposed paragraph (iii) describes the reevaluation process of a market
order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero. The Exchange
believes this format provides additional clarity to the Exchange's
rules regarding its order handling process when the Exchange
reevaluates a market order to sell when the national best bid becomes
zero.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (iv) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, in either case of (ii) or (iii)
above, such sell orders will automatically be placed on the Book in
time priority and will be displayed at the appropriate Minimum Price
Variation.\16\ The Exchange notes that this language is identical to
the current rule text.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (v) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange receives a market
order to sell an option when the national best bid is zero and the
national best offer is greater than the Threshold Setting, the System
will reject the order. This provision is consistent with the operation
of the current rule, however under the Exchange's proposal the
Threshold Setting used for evaluation purposes may now be either the
Exchange default setting of $0.10 or the Member's Threshold Setting.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (vi) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange reevaluates a
market order to sell an option when the resulting national best bid is
zero and both (A) the trade price or route price, and (B) the national
best offer, are greater than the Threshold Setting, the System will
reject the order or cancel any unexecuted balance of the order. The
Exchange uses the route price or trade price, in conjunction with the
national best offer to determine the proper disposition of a market
order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero. The Exchange
believes considering both the route price or trade price, and the
national best offer, provides a clear indication of the current market
conditions when either the route price or trade price and the national
best offer is greater than the Threshold Setting and allows the
Exchange to make the proper determination regarding the disposition of
the order.
    The proposed rule text provides additional detail regarding the
System's behavior when the Exchange reevaluates a market order to sell
and the national best bid has become zero. Example 1 below describes
the System processing when the national best bid is below the Threshold
Setting, and Example 2 describes the System processing when the
national best bid is above the Threshold Setting.
Example 1
MPV: $0.05
Exchange default Threshold Setting: $0.10
Member selected Threshold Setting: $0.25
MBBO \18\ (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``MBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABBO \19\ (10) 0.10 x 0.15 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The term ``ABBO'' or ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' means the
best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by other Eligible Exchanges
(defined in Rule 1400(g)) and calculated by the Exchange based on
market information received by the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange
Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBBO \20\ (10) 0.10 x 0.15 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.

    Market order to sell 20 contracts is received by the Exchange.
    The Exchange routes the order to the away exchange by sending a
limit order to sell 10 contracts at $0.10 (the route price).
    The order is executed on the away exchange, sell 10 at $0.10, and
the away market becomes zero bid.

MBBO: (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)

    Using the Member selected Threshold Setting of $0.25 to reevaluate
the order, the remainder of the order (10 contracts) would be converted
to a limit order to sell and placed on the Exchange as the national
best offer ($0.15) (and the route price of $0.10) is less than or equal
to the Member selected Threshold Setting of $0.25. The 10 contracts
would then be displayed on the Exchange at an offer price of one
minimum trading increment or $0.05.

MBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.05 (10)
ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.05 (10)

    If the Exchange default Threshold Setting was used for the
evaluation, the remainder of the order would be cancelled as the
national best offer (0.15) is greater than the Exchange default
Threshold Setting of $0.10.
Example 2
MPV: $0.05
Exchange default Threshold Setting: $0.10
Member selected Threshold Setting: $0.25
MBBO (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
ABBO (10) 0.40 x 0.50 (10)
NBBO (10) 0.40 x 0.50 (10)

    Market order to sell 20 contracts is received by the Exchange. The
Exchange is zero bid for that series and routes the order to the away
exchange by sending a limit order to sell 10 at $0.40 (the route
price).
    The order is executed on the away exchange, sell 10 at $0.40, and
the away market becomes zero bid.

MBBO: (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.50 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.50 (10)

    Using the Member selected Threshold Setting of $0.25 to reevaluate
the order, the remainder of the order (10 contracts) would be cancelled
as both (i) the route price ($0.40) and (ii) the national best offer
($0.50) are greater than the Threshold Setting ($0.25).
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in, securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
protects investors and the public interest by allowing Members to
establish the threshold setting for the evaluation of market orders to
sell when the national best bid is zero. The Exchange believes

that allowing Members to determine the threshold setting provides
greater flexibility and allows the Member to tailor the threshold
setting to the business and risk tolerances of the Member.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to allow Members the flexibility
to establish their own pre-set value to be used for evaluation purposes
of market orders to sell when the national best bid is zero allows
Members to align their risk protections with their risk tolerance.
Members have the discretion to set their pre-set value to whatever
value best aligns to their risk profile, which may be as low as
$0.00.\23\ The Exchange provides Members the ability to tailor risk
protection functionality to the risk profile of the Member, and has
allowed Members to customize their risk protection settings for other
risk protections. Specifically, the Exchange allows Members to set the
maximum size of an order for the purposes of the MIAX Order Monitor
Order Size Protection,\24\ and if the maximum size of an order is not
designated by the Member, the Exchange provides an Exchange defined
default value.\25\ Additionally, the Exchange provides Members the
option to set a price protection limit on a per order basis,\26\ and
orders received without a price protection limit specified receive the
Exchange defined default value.\27\ The current proposal to allow
Members to determine a pre-set value to be used as the Threshold
Setting continues the Exchange's approach of allowing a Member to
customize its risk protections to better align to the risk tolerance of
the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that the Nasdaq Phlx does not have a
threshold evaluation and, in the case where the bid price for any
options series is $0.00, a Market Order accepted into the System to
sell that series shall be considered a Limit Order to sell at a
price equal to the minimum trading increment as defined in Nasdaq
Phlx Options 3, Section 3. Orders will be placed on the Limit Order
book in the order in which they were received by the System. With
respect to Market Orders to sell which are submitted prior to the
Opening Process and persist after the Opening Process, those orders
are posted at a price equal to the minimum trading increment as
defined in Options 3, Section 3. See Nasdaq Phlx Options 3, Section
10(b).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80121 (February 28,
2017), 82 FR 12656 (March 6, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-09).
    \25\ See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2017-15, Mandatory
Usage of MIAX Options Order Monitor Protections (March 21, 2017)
available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2017_15.pdf.
    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80230 (March 13,
2017), 82 FR 14251 (March 17, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-12).
    \27\ See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2018-37, Changes to
MIAX Options Price Protection Process (August 20, 2018) available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Options_RC_2018_37.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to reorganize the current rule
text to describe each scenario separately (i.e., evaluation of a market
order to sell when the national best bid is zero and the national best
offer is less than or equal to the Threshold Setting (proposed
paragraph (ii)); reevaluation of a market order to sell when the
national best bid becomes zero and the national best offer is less than
or equal to the Threshold Setting (proposed paragraph (iii)); initial
evaluation of a market order to sell when the national best bid is zero
and the national best offer is greater than the Threshold Setting
(proposed paragraph (v)); and reevaluation of a market order to sell
when the national best bid becomes zero and the national best offer is
greater than the Threshold Setting (proposed paragraph vi))) better
organizes the rule text. The Exchange believes discussing each scenario
separately and describing the evaluations that are performed by the
System to determine the proper disposition of the order provides
transparency and clarity in the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
protects investors and the public interest by providing additional
detail regarding the Exchange's process for reevaluating market orders
to sell when the national best bid becomes zero. The Exchange believes
it is in the interest of investors and the public to accurately
describe the behavior of the Exchange's System in its rules as this
information may be used by investors to make decisions concerning the
submission of their orders. Transparency and clarity are consistent
with the Act because it removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protects investors and the public interest by accurately
describing how market orders to sell in zero bid series are handled on
the Exchange. It is in the public interest for rules to be accurate and
concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and
equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general, protects investors and the public interest by re-organizing
the rule text for ease of reference. The Exchange believes that
Exchange rules should be clear and transparent so as to avoid the
potential for confusion.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on intra-market competition as all Members that submit market
orders to the Exchange will be treated equally and the Rules of the
Exchange apply equally to all Exchange Members. Additionally, the
proposal allows each Member to determine the pre-set value to be used
as the Threshold Setting and allows each Member to align their
Threshold Setting to their risk tolerance.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the Exchange's proposal is not a
competitive filing but one that provides additional detail regarding
the Exchange's process for reevaluating market orders to sell when the
national bid becomes zero. Additionally, the Exchange's proposal is
similar to the rules of at least one other options exchange.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Cboe Rule 5.34(a)(1)(A) which provides that if the
System receives a sell market order in a series after it is open for
trading with an NBB of zero: (i) If the NBO in the series is less
than or equal to $0.50, then the System converts the market order to
a limit order with a limit price equal to the minimum trading
increment applicable to the series and enters the order into the
Book with a timestamp based on the time it enters the Book. If the
order has a Time-in-Force of GTC or GTD that expires on a subsequent
day, the order remains on the Book as a limit order until it
executes, expires, or the User cancels it. (ii) if the NBO in the
series is greater than $0.50, then the System cancels or rejects the
market order, or routes the market order to PAR for manual handling,
subject to a User's instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 the 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2022-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2022-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2022-22, and should be submitted on
or before June 24, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11876 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P