[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21225-21226]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1673-000]

Community Wind North 8 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Wind North 8 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 28, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed

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

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08437 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53152]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0007]

Prescription Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2014; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice
entitled ``Prescription Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2014'' that
appeared in the Federal Register of August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46980). The
document announced the Fiscal Year 2014 fee rates for the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act. The document was published with four errors. This
document corrects those errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Miller, Office of Financial
Management (HFA-100), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50, Rm. 210J, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, August 2,
2013, in FR Doc. 2013-18624, on pages 46981 and 46982 the following
corrections are made:
    1. On page 46981, in the second column, in the second sentence of
the second paragraph under I. Background, ``$718,699,000'' is corrected
to read ``$718,669,000''.
    2. On page 46981, in the third column, in the first sentence of the
first paragraph under II. Fee Revenue Amount for 2014, ``$718,699,000''
is corrected to read ``$718,669,000''.
    3. On page 46981, in the third column, in the first sentence of the
first paragraph under A. FY 2014 Statutory Fee Revenue Adjustments for
Inflation, ``$718,699,000'' is corrected to read ``$718,669,000''.
    4. On page 46982, in the first column, in the first sentence of the
first paragraph under B. FY 2014 Statutory Fee Revenue Adjustments for
Workload, ``$718,699,000'' is corrected to read ``$718,669,000''.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20958 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25773-25774]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66859; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Account Fee

April 25, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 18, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the 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 proposes to amend the Account Fee displayed in the
Pricing Schedule at Section VI, A entitled ``Membership Fees.''
    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
May 1, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to recoup some of the billing and
processing costs associated with participant accounts. The proposed
amendment would also encourage members to discontinue holding inactive
trading accounts, which the Exchange believes should, in turn,
eliminate the need to expend resources to create additional account
fields. As a result, the staff time allocated to maintaining account
records would be reduced, which would allow for a more efficient use of
staff resources.
    Currently, member organizations receive one free account for each
permit assigned to the member organization and the Exchange assesses an
Account Fee of $50.00 for each additional account a member holds. The
Exchange initially adopted this Account Fee in 2006 to encourage member
organizations to discontinue holding inactive trading accounts, which
the Exchange believed would, in turn, eliminate the need to expend
resources to create additional account.\3\ The Exchange is proposing to
amend this fee to assess an Account Fee of $50.00 per month for each
account held by a member organization. The Exchange would remove the
following text from the Pricing Schedule ``for each account beyond the
number of permits billed to that member organization.'' While today
member organizations receive one free account for each permit assigned
to the member organization, the proposal would bill a member
organization $50.00 for each account. The Account Fee would cover any
month, or any part of a month, during which an account is maintained by
a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53046 (January 3,
2006), 71 FR 1459 (January 9, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-89). The Exchange
noted in its filing that the $50 per month fee would be applicable
to any part of a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Member organizations are not restricted in the number of trading
accounts they may request through the Exchange's Membership Department.
In many instances, multiple accounts are requested by a member
organization as a means of tracking various trading activity using the
Exchange's account numbers or because they have multiple clearing
arrangements.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \5\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the Account
Fee is reasonable because it seeks to recoup costs incurred by the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange is seeking to incentivize members to
discontinue inactive trading accounts. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed Account Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would be uniformly applied to all members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-52 and should be
submitted on or before May 22, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10392 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9850-9852]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1146]
RIN 1625-AA08

Safety Zone; 2012 Mavericks Invitational, Half Moon Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in
support of the Mavericks Surf Competition. This temporary safety zone
will establish a temporary safety zone in vicinity of Pillar Point in
the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, California. The regulation will
temporarily restrict vessel traffic in vicinity of Pillar Point and
prohibit vessels not participating in the surfing event from entering
the dedicated surfing area and the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar
Point. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life
on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately
after the surfing competition.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR from February
21, 2012 until 3 p.m. March 31, 2012. This rule is effective with
actual notice for purposes of enforcement beginning 7 a.m. January 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1146 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1146 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade DeCarol Davis (415) 399-
7443, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 because the event would occur before the
rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by
the surf conditions during the 2012 Mavericks Invitational surf
competition, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
event participants, spectators, and other vessels transiting the event
area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to
have these regulations in effect during the event.
    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. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the surf
conditions during the 2012 Mavericks Invitational.

Basis and Purpose

    The 2012 Mavericks Invitational is a one day ``Big Wave'' surfing
competition consisting of the top 24 big wave surfers and only occurs
when 15-20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are combined
with mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10 knots. The rock and reef
ridges that make up the sea floor of the Pillar Point area combined
with optimal weather conditions create the large waves that Mavericks
is known for. Due to the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar Point at
the time of the surfing competition, the Coast Guard is establishing a
safety zone in vicinity of Pillar Point that restricts navigation in
the area of the surf competition and in neighboring hazardous areas.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone associated with the
2012 Mavericks Invitational surf competition. The 2012 Mavericks
Invitational will take place on a day that presents favorable surf
conditions between 7 a.m. Monday January 23, 2012 and 3 p.m. Saturday
March 31, 2012. The 2012 Mavericks Invitational can only occur when 15-
20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are combined with
mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10 knots. Unpredictable weather
patterns and the event's narrow operating window limit the Coast
Guard's ability to notify the public of the event. The Coast Guard will
issue notice of the event as soon as practicable, and no later than 24
hours prior via the Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    The 2012 Mavericks Invitational will occur on the navigable waters
of Half Moon Bay in vicinity of Pillar Point. The Coast Guard will
enforce a temporary safety zone bounded by a line connecting the
following coordinates in the order they appear: 37[deg]29[min]23[sec]
N, 122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]15[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]10[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]17[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]30[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]36[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]16[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]23[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]36[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]21[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]13[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]25[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]15[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]58[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]23[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W (NAD 83).
    The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of Pillar Point while the 2012 Mavericks
Invitational is taking place. During the enforcement period,
unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from transiting through,
anchoring, blocking, or loitering in the safety zone without permission
of the COTP or PATCOM. Vessels desiring to enter or operate in the
safety zone shall do so with COTP or PATCOM permission via VHF-23A or
through the 24-hour Command Center telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This safety zone is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe
distance away from the event participants and the hazardous waters
surrounding Pillar

Point. Failure to comply with the lawful directions of the Coast Guard
could result in additional vessel movement restrictions, citation, or
both.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    Although this rule regulates navigation in the waters encompassed
by the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant.
The entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. In addition, the
rule will only regulate navigation for a limited time. Finally, the
Public Broadcast Notice to Mariners will notify the users of local
waterway to ensure that the regulated area will result in minimum
impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    Although this rule may affect owners and operators of fishing
vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing, it will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) This rule
will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited
period of time; (ii) vessel traffic can pass safely around the area;
(iii) vessels engaged in commercial and recreational activities have
ample space outside of the affected areas of Half Moon Bay, CA to
engage in these activities; and (iv) the maritime public will be
advised in advance of this regulated area via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, which applies to regulations establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas, safety zones
or security zones.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-472 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-T11-472  Safety Zone; 2012 Mavericks Invitational, Half Moon
Bay, CA.

    (a) Location. This safety zone is established for the waters of
Half Moon Bay, California, in the vicinity of Pillar Point bounded by a
line connecting the following coordinates in the order they appear
written in this section: 37[deg]29[min]23[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]15[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]10[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]17[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]30[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]36[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]16[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]23[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]36[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]21[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]13[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]25[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]15[sec] N,
122[deg]29[min]58[sec] W; 37[deg]29[min]23[sec] N,
122[deg]30[min]04[sec] W (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. Patrol Commander (PATCOM). As used in this
section, ``Patrol Commander'' or ``PATCOM'' means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by the
Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to assist in the enforcement
of the safety zone.
    (c) Enforcement period. This rule is effective during the 2012
Maverick Invitational, which will take place on a day that presents
favorable surf conditions between 7 a.m. Monday January 23, 2012 and 3
p.m. Saturday March 31, 2012. The Coast Guard will issue notice of the
event to the public as soon as practicable, and no later than 24 hours
prior to the event via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, Subpart C this title, the safety zone is closed to all
unauthorized vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or
PATCOM.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or PATCOM to obtain permission. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or PATCOM. Persons
or vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A
or through the 24-hour Command Center telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The COTP, or PATCOM as the designated representative of the
COTP, may control the movement of all vessels operating on the
navigable waters of Half Moon Bay when the COTP has determined that
such orders are justified in the interest of safety by reason of
weather, visibility, sea conditions, temporary port congestion, and
other temporary hazardous circumstances. When hailed or signaled by
PATCOM, the hailed vessel must come to an immediate stop and comply
with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful
direction may result in additional operating restrictions, citation for
failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: January 23, 2012.
C.L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2012-3868 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54507-54510]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21861]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0184; FRL-10000-90-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Reasonably Available Control Technology State
Implementation Plan for Volatile Organic Compounds Under the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the District of Columbia's (the District) state
implementation plan (SIP) submitted on August 29, 2018. The District's
SIP revision satisfies the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably
available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The District will
address RACT for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in a separate SIP
submission. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0184. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2036. Mr. Becoat can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 2018, the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) submitted a SIP revision to
address all the RACT requirements for VOCs set forth by the CAA under
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2018 RACT Submission). The District's
RACT submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS includes: (1) Certification
that for certain major sources, previously adopted VOC RACT controls in
the District's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1979 1-hour and
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the currently available
technically and economically feasible controls, and continue to
represent RACT for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) a
listing of the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) already adopted
into the District's SIP, and (3) a listing of those categories of
sources subject to CTGs which do not exist in the District and the
location of prior negative declarations previously submitted and
approved by EPA. The District's SIP submittal also includes an update
to the 2002 Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing (MERR) rule to
incorporate the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) 2009 Motor Vehicle
and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations regulations
(MVMERR) rule adopted by the District in 2016. EPA addressed the 2009
MVMERR rule in a separate rulemaking action as it is not related to the
2008 VOC RACT SIP revision and does not impact EPA's approval. The DOEE
also submitted as an amendment to the SIP-approved 2002 MERR rule the
updated 2009 MVMERR rule. As previously mentioned, the 2009 MVMERR rule
was addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

I. Background

A. General

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOCs and NOX in the presence of sunlight. In order
to reduce these ozone concentrations, the CAA requires control of VOC
and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions in
moderate or more serious ozone nonattainment areas. Among effective
control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and
NOX emissions from major stationary sources.
    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\1\ Section 172 of the CAA sets forth general requirements
for SIPs in nonattainment areas, including a requirement that SIPs must
include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for attainment of
the NAAQS, including emissions reductions from existing sources through
adoption of RACT. CAA section 172(c)(1). Part D, subpart 2 of the CAA
sets forth additional provisions for ozone nonattainment areas. CAA
sections 181-185B. Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) of the CAA require
states with moderate

(or worse) ozone nonattainment areas to implement RACT controls on all
major stationary sources of VOC and NOX, and on source
categories covered by a CTG document issued by EPA, for sources located
in the nonattainment area. EPA's CTGs include recommendations on RACT
controls for various VOC source categories. The CTGs typically identify
a particular control level that EPA recommends as being RACT. In some
cases, EPA has issued Alternative Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs),
primarily for NOX source categories, which in contrast to
the CTGs, only present a range for possible control options but do not
identify any particular option as a recommendation for what is RACT.
Section 183(b) and (c) of the CAA requires EPA to revise and update
CTGs and ACTs as the Administrator determines necessary. States are
required to implement RACT for the source categories covered by CTGs
through the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' see also 44 FR 53761, 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(a) of the CAA established a single ozone transport
region (OTR), comprising all or part of 12 eastern states and the
District.\2\ The District is part of the OTR and, therefore, must
comply with the RACT requirements in section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2) of
the CAA. Specifically, section 184(b)(1)(B) requires the implementation
of RACT in OTR states with respect to all sources of VOC covered by a
CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) states that any stationary source
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs shall
be considered a major source and subject to the requirements which
would be applicable to major stationary sources as if the area was
classified as a moderate nonattainment area. Section 182(f) extends the
SIP requirements for major sources of VOCs to major sources of
NOX, as defined in sections 302 and 182(c), (d), and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia is included
in the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated the District
as a marginal nonattainment area. As part of the OTR, the District
must, at a minimum, implement more stringent moderate area RACT
requirements for: (1) All categories of VOC or NOX sources
covered by a CTG; (2) all other major stationary sources of VOC or
NOX located in the area. Section 182(b)(2). For the
District's 2008 VOC RACT analysis, despite classification as a marginal
nonattainment area, the OTR major source thresholds of 50 tpy for VOCs
and 100 tpy for NOX apply. Sections 184(b)(2), 182(f)(1).

B. EPA Guidance and Requirements

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS, as well as guidance. On
March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). 80 FR 12264,
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. This rule addressed, among
other things, control and planning obligations as they apply to
nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT
and RACM. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA stated that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations that there are no sources in the nonattainment area
covered by a specific CTG source category. 78 FR 34178, 34192 (June 6,
2013). Stated differently, states can meet the RACT requirements
associated with the 2008 ozone NAAQS either through (1) a certification
that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA
under a prior ozone NAAQS continue to represent adequate RACT control
levels for attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) through the
adoption of new or more stringent regulations or controls that
represent RACT control levels; and/or (3) a negative declaration if
there are no source categories subject to certain CTGs within the
nonattainment area. A certification must be accompanied by appropriate
supporting information such as consideration of information received
during the public comment period and consideration of new data.
Adoption of new RACT regulations is more likely to occur when states
have new stationary sources not covered by existing RACT regulations,
or when new data or technical information indicates that a previously
adopted RACT measure does not represent a currently available RACT
control level.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 29, 2018, the DOEE submitted a SIP revision to address
all the VOC RACT requirements set forth by the CAA for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the District's 2018 RACT Submission
included: (1) A certification that for certain major sources,
previously adopted VOC RACT controls in the District's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
based on the currently available technically and economically feasible
controls, and continue to represent RACT for implementation of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) a listing of the CTGs already adopted into the
District's SIP, and (3) a listing of those categories of sources
subject to CTGs which do not exist in the District and the location of
prior negative declarations previously submitted and approved by EPA.
    More detailed information on the District's 2018 VOC RACT
submission; as well as a detailed summary of EPA's review of the
submission, can be found in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for
this action published on July 11, 2019 (84 FR 33032), which is also
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-
2019-0184.
    After evaluating the SIP revision submittal, EPA concluded that the
District's SIP revision satisfied the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT
requirements for VOC through (1) certification that previously adopted
RACT controls in the District's SIP for major, non-CTG VOC sources that
were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
continue to be based on the currently available technically and
economically feasible controls, and that they continue to represent
RACT; (2) a listing identifying those CTGs which the District has
already adopted into its SIP, and (3) a listing of the negative
declarations submitted by the District for those source categories
covered by CTGs that do not exist in the District. On July 11, 2019 (84
FR 33032), EPA published an NPR for the District's SIP revision. EPA
received one comment, which is addressed in Section III below.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from one anonymous commenter during the
comment period for the proposed rulemaking action.
    Comment #1: The commenter stated: ``Did EPA actually review the
regulations listed in table 1 for the control techniques guidance
requirements or is EPA just saying that because these regulations were
previously certified EPA doesn't have to review these regulations
anymore? EPA should review every regulations the district lists to make
sure the district still enforces these rules and that the rules
continue to meet the reasonably available control technology
requirements listed in the CTG to this day as well as make sure the
district's regulations are identical to the regulations approved into
the state's plan. The district periodically reevaluates it's
regulations and makes changes as required by their laws so

EPA needs to be very careful with what the district says it's
regulations are meeting.''
    Response #1: EPA does not agree with the commenter's concerns. As
noted in the NPR published on July 11, 2019 (84 FR 33032), and the
associated Technical Support Document included in the docket, EPA has
reviewed the District's 2018 RACT submission, including all associated
regulations and tables, and concluded that the District has met the VOC
RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as set forth by
sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA. Therefore, this revision will
help the District attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. The District
certified that the regulations, under Title 20 (Environment), District
Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Subtitle A (Air Quality), Chapter 7--
Volatile Organic Compounds, which contains the VOC RACT controls
previously approved by EPA into the SIP under the 1-hour and 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, continue to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS for major stationary sources and CTG covered sources
of VOCs.
    First, EPA did review the District's regulations cited in Table 1,
to ensure that every CTG and ACT identified as having been adopted by
the District is still codified in the District's regulations.
    Second, Table 1 of the District's SIP submission lists the date
when EPA approved each SIP submission requesting approval for an
adopted CTG or ACT. EPA evaluated the District's adopted regulations to
ensure they conformed to the CTGs or ACTs at the time that EPA approved
a SIP revision adopting a CTG or ACT. Moreover, if the District has
changed any of its RACT regulations following EPA's approval of those
CTGs or ACTs as part of the SIP, the version of the District's
regulations which were approved into the SIP by EPA are still
enforceable by EPA and the public.
    Finally, EPA did not review in this action the District's
enforcement of its currently-adopted regulations. EPA has authority to
enforce any requirement of an EPA-approved SIP, See CAA section 113,
and therefore has concurrent enforcement authority over those
regulations which are in the District's SIP. Furthermore, EPA is not
aware of any failure of the District to ensure that the RACT
regulations are being implemented.
    Comment #2: The commenter also stated: ``Under Table 2 the district
says there are no fixed roof tanks that store petroleum products but a
simple look at Google Maps shows the Ronald Reagan Nation Airport has
several fixed roof tanks for storage of petroleum products. Did EPA
actually review this table and make sure there were no sources subject
to these control techniques guidance documents or did EPA just rely on
the district's thinly stretched staff to make sure they don't have
sources subject to every guidance document? EPA must do it's own
independent research and come to the same conclusion as the district.''
    Response # 2: Regarding commenter's concern about the fixed roof
tanks at Ronald Reagan National Airport, EPA notes that the tanks and
airport are located in Arlington, Virginia and therefore are not within
the District's jurisdiction. Also, EPA did review Tables 1 and 2 to
determine if the District made negative declarations for any CTG or ACT
sources that were likely to be within the District. Many of the CTGs in
Table 1 and ACTs in Table 2 are aimed at controlling emissions from
large manufacturing facilities, such as shipbuilding, refinery
operations, manufacture of metal furniture, manufacture of rubber
tires, etc. These kind of manufacturing facilities would be known to
EPA and the District Department of Energy and Environment,
notwithstanding any perceived shortage of staff. EPA CAA enforcement
personnel inspect facilities in the District for compliance with all
CAA requirements and are familiar with the types of air emission
sources located in the District. In response to this comment, EPA
Region 3 air enforcement personnel reviewed Tables 1 and 2 in the SIP
submission and did not identify any sources covered by a negative
declaration that actually exist in the District. In sum, EPA did not
identify any sources subject to CTGs or ACTs in the District for which
the District submitted a negative declaration, and the commenter did
not identify any such sources.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the District of Columbia's August 29, 2018 SIP
revision that satisfies the VOC RACT requirements under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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 it is not a significant action 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 9, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, which approves the District's 2008 8-hour ozone
RACT SIP revision, may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 23, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.470, in the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``VOC RACT and Negative Declarations--VOC Source Categories under
the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP                                         State        EPA approval      Additional
           revision               Applicable geographic area    submittal date        date          explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
VOC RACT and Negative          District of Columbia...........      08/29/2018  10/10/2019,.....
 Declarations--VOC Source                                                       [Insert Federal
 Categories under the 2008 8-                                                    Register
 Hour ozone NAAQS.                                                               citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21861 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19707-19709]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08337]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74666; File No. SR-BATS-2015-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
20.6 To Adopt a New Provision To Account for Erroneous Trades Occurring
From Disruptions and/or Malfunctions of Exchange Systems

April 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 1, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Item II
below, which Item has been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has
designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 20.6, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors, to adopt a
new provision to account for erroneous trades occurring from
disruptions and/or malfunctions of Exchange systems. The proposed rule
change is based on the rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\5\ Therefore, the
Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial and provided
the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under
the Act.\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ISE Rule 720A and NYSE Arca Rule 6.89. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72490 (June 27, 2014), 79 FR
38105 (July 3, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-34) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish New
Rule 720A). The proposed rule change is also based in part on Nasdaq
OMX PHLX, LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1092(c)(ii)(A), and in addition, is
substantially similar to Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') Rule 6.25(a)(3).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 parts 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 Rule 20.6, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors, to adopt a
new provision to account for erroneous trades occurring from
disruptions and/or malfunctions of Exchange systems. Specifically,
proposed paragraph (k) to Rule 20.6 would provide that any transaction
that arises out of a ``verifiable systems disruption or malfunction''
in the use or operation of an Exchange automated quotation,
dissemination, execution, or communication system may either be
nullified or adjusted by an Official. Under the proposed paragraph (k),
an Official may act, on his or her own motion, to review erroneous
transactions. The proposed rule change is based on the rules of NYSE
Arca and the ISE.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the proposal, in the event of any verifiable
disruption or malfunction in the use or operation of an Exchange
automated quotation, dissemination, execution, or communication system,
in which the nullification or modification of transactions may be
necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or the protection of
investors and the public interest exists, an Official, on his or her
own motion, may review such transactions and declare the transactions
occurring during such period null and void or adjust the price of those
transaction to their Theoretical Price, as defined in paragraph (b) of
Rule 20.6. Pursuant to the proposal, an Official, absent extraordinary
circumstances, must initiate action under this authority within sixty
(60) minutes of the occurrence of the erroneous transaction that was a
result of a verifiable disruption or malfunction.
    Each Options Member involved in the transaction shall be notified
as soon as practicable, and any Options Member aggrieved by the action
may appeal such action in accordance with the provisions of proposed
renumbered paragraph (l) of Rule 20.6. Current subparagraph (k), which
sets for the appeals process of decisions made by an

Official \8\ pursuant to Rule 20.6, would be renumbered as paragraph
(l) and cross references to current paragraph (k) within Rule 20.6
would be updated to reference renumbered paragraph (l) accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An Official is defined under current Rule 20.6(d) as ``[a]n
Officer of the Exchange or such other employee designee of the
Exchange that is trained in the application of this rule [20.6].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission recently approved amendments
to Rule 20.6 \9\ and that other options markets are to file proposed
rule changes with the Commission to harmonize their respective obvious
and catastrophic error rules with Rule 20.6. The Exchange understands
that the provision it proposes to add to Rule 20.6 herein is to be
retained by other options exchanges as part of their harmonized rules.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it is critical to its ability to
maintain fair and orderly markets and to protect investors to propose
to add this provision to its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act. Release No. 74556 (March 20,
2015) (SR-BATS-2014-067). The Exchange notes that a comment letter
received in response to the proposed rule change suggesting that the
Exchange also include a rule provision covering verifiable
disruptions or malfunctions of Exchange systems as proposed herein.
See letter from Joanna Fields, Principal, Aplomb Strategies Inc. to
Brent Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated March 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide the flexibility
and authority provided for in proposed paragraph (k) to Rule 20.6 so as
not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to
unforeseen problems and malfunctions. The proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange with the same authority to nullify or adjust
trades in the event of a ``verifiable disruption or malfunction'' in
the use or operation of its systems as other exchanges have.\10\ For
this reason, the Exchange believes that, in the interest of maintaining
a fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors,
authority to nullify or adjust trades in these circumstances,
consistent with the authority on other exchanges, is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system and promote a fair and orderly market because it
would provide authority to the Exchange to nullify or adjust trades
that may have resulted from a verifiable systems disruption or
malfunction. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide
the flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed rule change
so as not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to
unforeseen systems problems or malfunctions that may result in harm to
the public. Allowing for the nullification or modification of
transactions that result from verifiable disruptions and/or
malfunctions of Exchange systems will offer market participants on the
Exchange a level of relief not presently available. The Exchange
further notes that when acting under its own motion of nullify or
adjust trades pursuant to proposed paragraph (k) of Rule 20.6, the
Exchange must consider whether taking such action would be in the
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the
protection of investors. The Exchange also notes that proposed rule
change is based on the rules of other exchanges.

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. Rather, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition because it
will align the Exchange's rules with the rules of other markets,
including CBOE, NYSE Arca, the ISE, and PHLX. By adopting paragraph (k)
to Rule 20.6 the Exchange will be in a position to treat transactions
that are the result of a verifiable systems disruption or malfunction
in a manner similar to other exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BATS-2015-26, and should be submitted on or before May
4, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08337 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P