[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68543-68548]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1101; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 150,
152, 170, 172, 175, 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 195, 206, 207, 210,
T303, 336, and 337 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 87-20-03
R2, which applies to certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 150, 152,
170, 172, 175, 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 195, 206, 207, 210, T303,
336, and 337 series airplanes. AD 87-20-03 R2 currently requires
repetitive inspections and replacement of parts, if necessary, of the
seat rail and seat rail holes; seat pin engagement; seat rollers,
washers, and axle bolts or bushings; wall thickness of roller housing
and the tang; and lock pin springs. Since we issued AD 87-20-03 R2, we
have added steps to the inspection procedures, added revised figures,
and clarified some of the existing steps. Consequently, this proposed
AD would retain all of the actions from the previous AD and add steps
to the inspection procedures in the previous AD. We are proposing this
AD to prevent seat slippage or the seat roller housing from departing
the seat rail, which may consequently cause the pilot/copilot to be
unable to reach all the controls. This failure could lead to

the pilot/copilot losing control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 23,
2010.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-
118W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road,
Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316)
946-4107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, ``FAA-
2010-1101; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-013-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Reports of seats slipping on the rails on Cessna airplanes caused
us to issue AD 87-20-03 R2, Amendment 39-6669. AD 87-20-03 R2 currently
requires repetitive inspections and replacement of parts if necessary
of the seat rail and seat rail holes; seat pin engagement; seat
rollers, washers, and axle bolts or bushings; wall thickness of roller
housing and the tang; and lock pin springs on Cessna 150, 152, 170,
172, 175, 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 195, 206, 207, 210, T303, 336,
and 337 series airplanes.
    We have in the last 20 years received several reports of accidents,
some fatal, for Cessna airplanes where the primary latch pin for the
pilot/copilot seat is not properly engaged in the seat rail/track.
There have also been incidents where the seat roller housing has
departed the seat rail. Consequently, we have added steps to the
inspection procedures, added revised figures, and clarified some of the
existing steps.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in seat slippage or
the seat roller housing departing from the seat rail, which may
consequently cause the pilot/copilot to be unable to reach all the
controls. This failure could lead to the pilot/copilot losing control
of the airplane.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would supersede AD 87-20-03 R2 with a new AD that would retain all of
the actions from the previous AD and add steps to the inspection
procedures in the previous AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 36,000 airplanes in
the U.S. registry.
    The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative
costs associated with AD 87-20-03 R2. The required actions of this
proposed AD are the same as in AD 87-20-03 R2 with the exception of
some added steps to the inspection, which do not increase work-hours.
The increased estimated cost of this AD is due to increased labor cost
and parts cost from 1987 when AD 87-20-03 R2 was issued.
    We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspections:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost per   Total cost on
                  Labor cost                              Parts cost                airplane      U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..............  Not applicable................             $85       $3,060,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need
this replacement:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total cost per
             Labor cost                   Parts cost         airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat rail: 2 work-hours x $85 per    $225 per rail......            $395
 hour = $170 per rail.
Seat roller kit: 2 work-hours per    110................             280
 seat (less per leg) x $85 per hour
 = $170.
Miscellaneous parts, such as seat    15.................             100
 rollers, washers, bushings, bolts,
 lock pin springs, etc.: 1 work-
 hour per seat x $85 per hour = $85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is located at the street address stated 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 87-20-03 R2, Amendment 39-6669, and adding the following new AD:

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1101; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-013-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by December 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 87-20-03 R2, Amendment 39-6669.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all serial numbers of the following
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models that are certificated in any
category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Models
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
150A, 150B, 150C, 150D, 150E, 150F, 150G, 150H, 150J, 150K, 150L, 150M,
 A150K, A150L, A150M, F150F, F150G, F150H, F150J, F150K, F150L, F150M,
 FA150K, FA150L, FA150M, FRA150L, and FRA150M
152, A152, F152, and FA152
170, 170A, and 170B
172, 172A, 172B, 172C, 172D, 172E, 172F (USAF T-41A), 172G, 172H (USAF T-
 41A), 172I, 172K, 172L, 172M, 172N, 172P, 172Q, 172RG, F172D, F172E,
 F172F, F172G, F172H, F172K, F172L, F172M, F172N, F172P, FR172E, FR172F,
 FR172G, FR172H, FR172J, FR172K, P172D, R172E (USAF T[dash]41B) (USAF T-
 41C and D), R172F (USAF T-41D), R172G (USAF T-41C or D), R172H (USAF T-
 41D), R172J, and R172K
175, 175A, 175B, and 175C
177, 177A, 177B, 177RG, and F177RG
180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, and 180K
182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 182E, 182F, 182G, 182H, 182J, 182K, 182L,
 182M, 182N, 182P, 182Q, 182R, F182P, F182Q, FR182, R182, T182, and
 TR182
185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and A185F
188, 188A, A188, A188A, 188B, A188B, and T188C
190
195, 195A, and 195B
206, P206, P206A, P206B, P206C, P206D, P206E, TP206A, TP206B, TP206C,
 TP206D, TP206E, TU206A, TU206B, TU206C, TU206D, TU206E, TU206F, TU206G,
 U206, U206A,U206B, U206C, U206D, U206E, U206F, and U206G
207, 207A, T207, and T207A
210, 210-5 (205), 210-5A (205A), 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, 210F,
 210G, 210H, 210J, 210K, 210L, 210M, 210N, 210R, P210N, P210R, T210F,
 T210G, T210H, T210J, T210K, T210L, T210M, T210N, and T210R
T303
336
337, 337A, 337B, 337C, 337D, 337E, 337F, 337G, 337H, F337E, F337F,
 F337G, F337H, FT337E, FT337F, FT337GP, FT337HP, M337B, P337H, T337B,
 T337C, T337D, T337E, T337F, T337G, T337H, and T337H-SP
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of seats slipping on the rails
where the primary latch pin for the pilot/copilot seat is not
properly engaged in the seat rail/track and reports of the seat
roller housing departing the seat rail. We are issuing this AD to
prevent seat slippage or the seat roller housing from departing the
seat rail, which may consequently cause the pilot/copilot to be
unable to reach all the controls. This failure could lead to the
pilot/copilot losing control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) For all airplanes, to address the unsafe condition described
in paragraph (d) of this AD, you must do the following actions on
the seat rails; seat rollers, washers, and axle bolts or bushings;
seat roller housings and the tangs; and lock pin springs, unless
already done, initially within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the last inspection done following AD 87-20-03 R2 or
within the next 12 calendar months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitively thereafter do the actions
at intervals not to exceed every 100 hours TIS or every 12 months,
whichever occurs first:
    (1) Visually inspect the pilot and copilot seat rails for dirt
and debris that may prevent engagement of the seat locking pins.
Before further flight, after any inspection where dirt or debris is
found, remove the dirt or debris found.
    (2) Lift up the forward edge of each seat to eliminate vertical
play of the seat locking pin

in the engagement hole, and from this position, inspect the depth of
engagement of each seat locking pin (see figure 2). If the rail is
worn, this depth is measured from the worn surface, not the
manufactured surface.
    (i) If engagement of any of the seat locking pins measures less
than 0.15 of an inch, before further flight, replace or repair any
seat components necessary to achieve a seat pin engagement of a
minimum of 0.15 of an inch.
    (ii) Repair or replacement of necessary seat components does not
terminate the repetitive actions required in paragraph (e) of this
AD.
    (3) Remove the seat from the seat rail.
    (i) Remove the seat stops.
    (ii) Disengage seat belt/shoulder harness from the seat, if
necessary.
    (iii) Raise vertical adjusting seats to maximum height.
    (iv) Hold seat latches disengaged and slide the seat forward and
aft to disengage rollers.
    (v) Lift the seat out of the airplane.
    (4) Inspect the diameter of each seat locking pin engagement
hole in the pilot and copilot seat rails for excessive wear. Due to
wear on the rail surface at the hole opening, we allow this
measurement 0.020 of an inch below the surface of the rail. You must
take this measurement somewhere between the surface of the rail or
no more than 0.020 of an inch below the surface of the rail.
    (i) If the diameter of any of the holes is 0.42 of an inch or
more (see figure 1), before further flight, replace the rail.
    (ii) Rail replacement does not terminate the repetitive actions
required in paragraph (e) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08NO10.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08NO10.040

    (5) Visually inspect the seat rollers for flat spots and inspect
the rollers and washers for binding. Assure all rollers and washers,
which are meant to rotate, turn freely on their axles (or bushings
if installed).
    (i) Before further flight, replace any rollers with flat spots
and any worn washers.
    (ii) Before further flight, remove and clean the parts if there
is any binding between the bores of the rollers, washers, or axles.
    (iii) Do not lubricate the rollers, washers, or axles because
the lubricant will attract dust and other particles that may cause
binding.
    (6) Inspect the thickness of the tang (see figure 2 and figure
3). Due to wear of the tang chafing against the seat rail, measure
the tang thickness where the tang inner edges contact the seat rail.
    (i) If the tang thickness measures less than 0.05 of an inch,
before further flight replace the roller housing.
    (ii) Replacement of the roller housing does not terminate the
repetitive actions required in paragraph (e) of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08NO10.041

    (7) Inspect the inner edges of the tangs. Due to wear or
deformation of the tangs, measure the distance from one tang inner
edge to the other tang inner edge (see figure 4).
    (i) The maximum distance allowed between tang edges is 0.44
inches. If the distance between tang inner edges measures 0.44 of an
inch or more, before further flight, replace the roller housing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08NO10.042

    (ii) The minimum measurement allowed for the remaining tang is
0.130 inches remaining on either of the tangs, from the inner edge
of the tang to the bend of the roller housing. If the measurement is
less than 0.130 inches on either of the tangs, before further
flight, replace the roller housing.
    (iii) Replacement of the roller housing does not terminate the
repetitive actions required in paragraph (e) of this AD.
    (8) Inspect the springs that keep the lock pins in position in
the rail holes for positive engagement action. Before further
flight, replace any spring that does not provide positive
engagement.
    (9) Visually inspect the seat rails for cracks.
    (i) If there are seat rail cracks that exceed the crack criteria
in figure 5, before further flight, replace the seat rail.
    (ii) Replacement of the seat rail does not terminate the
repetitive actions required in paragraph (e) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08NO10.043

    (10) Reinstall the seat on the seat rail.
    (i) Lift the seat into the airplane and place on the seat rail.
    (ii) Hold seat latch disengaged and slide the seat aft and then
forward to re-engage rollers.
    (iii) Lower vertical adjusting seats to a comfortable height.
    (iv) Reattach seat belt/shoulder harness to the seat, if
previously attached to the seat.
    (v) Reinstall the seat stops.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-118W, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (h) AMOCs approved for AD 87-20-03 R2 are approved for this AD.

Related Information

    (i) To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 1, 2010.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28158 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81308-81309]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-44-000]

Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC; Notice Rejecting Request for
Extension of Time

December 22, 2015.
    On December 3, 2015, the Commission issued an order denying a
complaint filed by Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Sage Grouse)
against PacifiCorp under Rule 206(a) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure.\1\ On December 16, 2015, Sage Grouse filed a
motion for extension of time and waiver, asking the Commission to grant
a 30-day extension of time for Sage Grouse to determine whether to file
a request for rehearing of the December 3 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC, 153 FERC ] 61,272 (2015)
(December 3 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act,\2\ an
aggrieved party must file an application for rehearing within thirty
days after the issuance of the Commission's order. Moreover, the courts
and the Commission have repeatedly recognized that the time period by
which a party may file an application for rehearing of a

Commission order is statutorily established at 30 days and that the
Commission has no discretion to extend that deadline.\3\ Because the
30-day rehearing deadline is a statutory deadline, it cannot be
extended, and Sage Grouse's request for a 30-day extension must
therefore be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 825l(a) (2012).
    \3\ See, e.g., City of Campbell v. FERC, 770 F.2d 1180, 1183
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (``The 30-day time requirement of the [FPA] is as
much a part of the jurisdictional threshold as the mandate to file
for a rehearing.''); Boston Gas Co. v. FERC, 575 F.2d 975, 977-98,
979 (1st Cir. 1978) (describing identical rehearing provision of
Natural Gas Act as ``a tightly structured and formal provision.
Neither the Commission or the courts are given any form of
jurisdictional discretion.''); see also PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
138 FERC ] 61,160 (2012) (rejecting request for clarification as
untimely request for rehearing); La. Energy and Power Auth., 117
FERC ] 61,258 (2006); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator,
Inc., 112 FERC ] 61,211, at P 10 (2005); Texas-New Mexico Power Co.,
107 FERC ] 61,316, at P 22 (2004); Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp.,
105 FERC ] 61,322, at P 9 (2003); Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 95
FERC ] 61,130, at 61,411-12 (2001).

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32693 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63858-63865]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26916]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0828; FRL-9987-77-OW]

Proposed Modification to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges From
Construction Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed modification to the general permit for
construction stormwater discharges and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: All ten Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions today
are proposing for public comment a

modification to the 2017 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges from
construction activities, also referred to as the ``2017 Construction
General Permit (CGP)'' or ``2017 CGP'' which became effective on
February 16, 2017. The EPA is proposing a modification to the 2017 CGP
that is limited to clarifying the intent of several requirements and
ensuring consistency with the Construction and Development Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards. This
action is hereafter referred to as the ``proposed modification'' or
``draft modified permit.'' The proposed modification, if finalized,
would replace several existing conditions in the 2017 CGP and relevant
fact sheet sections subject to modification, but would not affect any
other terms and conditions of the existing permit, including: The
eligible coverage area; the number or type of entities eligible to be
covered by the permit; nor the five-year permit term of the current
2017 CGP, which will expire on February 16, 2022. The current 2017 CGP
remains in effect while the EPA pursues this action. This Federal
Register notice describes the proposed modification and where the
proposed changes can be found in the 2017 CGP. To assist in the
public's review of this proposed modification, the EPA has posted a
redline strikeout version of the permit and accompanying fact sheet
showing all of the proposed changes in context of the documents they
would modify at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities; these documents can also be found in the
Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0828).

DATES: Comments on the proposed modification must be received on or
before January 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2015-0828 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
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. A written comment must accompany any multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.). The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
proposed modification, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office
listed in Section I.F of this notice, or Emily Halter, EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.:
202-564-3324 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    D. Will public hearings be held on this action?
    E. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed
modification?
    F. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed
modification?
II. Background on the Permit and Proposed Modification
III. Summary of the Proposed Modification
IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts
V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
VI. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Discharges From Construction Activities
VII. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
VIII. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

1. Entities Covered by This Permit
    The proposed modification described herein would not change the
types of entities eligible to be covered under the 2017 CGP. The CGP
would continue to be available to cover the following entities, as
categorized in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS):

             Table 1--Entities Covered by This Draft Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            industry
           Category              Examples of affected    classification
                                       entities          system (NAICS)
                                                              code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  Construction site
                                 operators disturbing
                                 1 or more acres of
                                 land, or less than 1
                                 acre but part of a
                                 larger common plan
                                 of development or
                                 sale if the larger
                                 common plan will
                                 ultimately disturb 1
                                 acre or more, and
                                 performing the
                                 following
                                 activities:
                                Construction of                      236
                                 Buildings.
                                Heavy and Civil                      237
                                 Engineering
                                 Construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
provides it as a guide for readers regarding the types of activities of
which the Agency is now aware that could potentially be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also
be affected. To determine whether your site could be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the definition of ``construction
activity'' and ``small construction activity'' in existing EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Coverage Area of the Draft Modified Permit
    The proposed modification described herein would not change the
scope of coverage under the 2017 CGP. Coverage

would remain available to operators of eligible projects for stormwater
discharges from construction activities located in those areas where
the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. A list of eligible areas can
be found in Appendix B of the 2017 CGP and include the states of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Idaho (until July 1, 2021,
which is the date Idaho becomes authorized to implement the NPDES
Stormwater program), as well as most Indian country lands, and areas in
selected states operated by a federal operator. Permit coverage is also
available to operators in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and
the Pacific Island territories, among others.

B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?

    1. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for
this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0828. The official
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register notice
electronically through the United States government on-line source for
Federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Electronic versions of this draft modified permit and draft
modified fact sheet are available on the EPA's NPDES website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the Agency's Docket Center homepage at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in
Section I.B.1.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    The EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
in the Agency's electronic public docket as the Agency receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. As
noted previously, CBI information should not be submitted through
regulations.gov or by email. When the EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, the Agency will provide a reference to
that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the
Agency's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public
docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to the EPA's electronic
public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the
docket will be scanned and placed in the EPA's electronic public
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the
photograph will be placed in the EPA's electronic public docket along
with a brief description written by the docket staff.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
    To assist the EPA in reviewing and evaluating public comments,
please consider the following tips and suggestions when preparing your
comments for the Agency:
     Identify this draft modified permit by docket number and
other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date,
and page number).
     Where possible, organize comments by referencing a
paragraph or part of the draft modified permit or draft modified fact
sheet, whichever applies.
     Explain as clearly as possible why you agree or disagree
with the proposed modification.
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for any
requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

D. Will public hearings be held on this action?

    Due to the limited scope of this proposed modification, the EPA has
not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment concerning
the draft modified permit. All persons will continue to have the right
to provide written comments during the public comment period. However,
interested persons may request a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR
124.12 concerning the draft modified permit. Requests for a public
hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same address as
provided above for public comments prior to the close of the comment
period and must state the nature of the issue the requester would like
raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, the EPA shall hold a
public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a significant
degree of public interest in a public hearing on the draft modified
permit. If the EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public notice of
the date, time, and place of the hearing will be made at least 30 days
prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written or oral statements
and data pertaining to the draft modified permit at the public hearing.

E. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed
modification?

    After the close of the public comment period, the EPA intends to
issue a final decision on the permit modification. Any modification
will not be issued until all significant comments have been considered
and appropriate changes made to the draft modified permit. The EPA's
responses to public comments received will be included in the docket as
part of the final modification issuance. Any construction site operator

that has permit coverage under the 2017 CGP prior to the final issuance
of the modification will automatically remain covered under the permit
and will not have to resubmit or modify their Notice of Intent (NOI)
due to the finalized permit modification.

F. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed modification?

    For EPA Region 1, contact Suzanne Warner at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for Puerto Rico, contact Sergio
Bosques at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Carissa Moncavage at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Michael Mitchell at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Suzanna Perea at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact Amy Clark at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at tel.: (206) 553-
1772 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background on the Permit and Proposed Modification

    Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) directs the EPA to
regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES program for certain
designated sources, including discharges from regulated construction
sites. The EPA's NPDES regulations further specify that permits are
required for stormwater discharges from construction activities that
disturb at least one acre, including sites that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale that will ultimately disturb at
least one acre. See 40 CFR 122.26(a)(1)(ii), (a)(9)(i)(B), (b)(14)(x),
and (b)(15)(i). Under the statutory and regulatory authority cited
above, the EPA issued the final 2017 CGP on January 19, 2017 (82 FR
6534) and the permit became effective on February 16, 2017.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, the 2017 CGP was considered issued
for the purposes of judicial review on January 25, 2017. Within the
120-day period of judicial review under section 509(b) of the CWA, both
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF) filed petitions for review of the 2017 CGP in the
United States Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit.
    After receiving the petitions for review, the EPA engaged in
multiple discussions with both NAHB and CBF in which the parties
discussed their concerns about certain permit requirements and how
those requirements might be subject to confusion and misinterpretation
by construction site operators permitted under the 2017 CGP. Through
discussions with the petitioners, the following information was brought
to the EPA's attention:
     In the current 2017 CGP, providing parenthetical examples
within the definition of ``operator'' describing what type of party
could be considered an operator ``in most cases'' may be confusing. See
specifically Parts 1.1.1(a) and (b).
     The permit text for certain erosion and sediment control
and pollution prevention permit requirements that implement the
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Construction & Development (40 CFR part 450)
(referred to collectively as ``the C&D rule'') may not adequately
connect the permit requirements to controlling stormwater discharges as
in the C&D rule.
     The explanation in the 2017 CGP regarding legal
responsibility for permit compliance in situations where there are
multiple operators may be unclear. The explanation for an instance
where there are multiple operators at one construction site who each
require permit coverage and who divide permit responsibilities among
themselves, including the use and maintenance of a shared stormwater
control (such as a sediment basin), may be misinterpreted to mean that
each operator must perform every permit-related function, even if those
responsibilities were by agreement performed by another operator.
Additionally, references to joint and several liability in the current
permit may have been an inaccurate way to explain what the permit
compliance duties are for multiple operators who share implementation
responsibilities under the permit.
    Under 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2), the EPA may modify a permit if the
Agency is presented with new information during the permit term that
was not available at the time of issuance and would have justified the
application of different permit conditions at the time of issuance.
Based on the information the petitioners provided to the EPA following
the issuance of the 2017 CGP, the Agency is proposing a permit
modification to clarify the Agency's intent of the related permit
requirements.
    The proposed modification would remove examples of operators in the
definition of operator; align three requirements that implement the C&D
rule more closely with the ELG text (one requirement on minimizing
dust, one on streambank erosion control, and one on building materials
pollution prevention); and clarify the roles and responsibilities of
individual operators in multiple operator arrangements. The proposed
changes in this modification would simplify the permit language and
accompanying fact sheet explanation but would not affect the
substantive requirements, applicability, implementation, or
enforceability of the permit's current requirements. Only those
requirements that the EPA proposes to modify would be reopened in the
draft modified permit for public comment (40 CFR 122.62). The proposed
modification, if finalized, would replace the existing conditions in
the 2017 CGP and relevant fact sheet sections subject to modification,
but not affect any other terms and conditions of the permit.
    In addition, the proposed modification would not affect the
eligible coverage area, the number or type of entities eligible to be
covered by the permit, nor the five-year permit term of the current
2017 CGP, which will expire on February 16, 2022. The current 2017 CGP
remains in effect while the EPA pursues this proposed permit
modification. The proposed modification is summarized in more detail
below.

III. Summary of the Proposed Modification

    The EPA proposes the following specific changes to the 2017 CGP:
    1. Removing examples in the definition of ``operator''--The EPA
proposes to remove the parenthetical examples of the type of party that
may be considered an operator from the definition of ``operator.'' If a
party wishes to obtain coverage under the 2017 CGP for its stormwater
discharges from construction activities, it is the operator who is
responsible for submitting to the EPA a Notice of Intent (NOI) for
coverage under the permit. In the previous 2012 CGP, the EPA defined an
``operator'' as ``any party associated with a construction project that
meets either of the following two criteria: (a)

The party has operational control over construction plans and
specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those
plans and specifications; or (b) the party has day-to-day operational
control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure
compliance with the permit conditions (e.g., they are authorized to
direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the
permit).'' During the proposal of the 2017 CGP, the EPA received a
public comment stating that, ``to make the meaning [of ``operator''] as
clear as possible, it would be helpful for the EPA to include, within
the body of the permit, examples of whom it expects to meet part one
and part two of the definition.'' To address this comment, in the final
issuance of the 2017 CGP, the EPA added the requested examples into the
two-part definition of operator. These additions, denoted here in
italicized text, read as follows: ``an ``operator'' is any party
associated with a construction project that meets either of the
following two criteria: (a) The party has operational control over
construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make
modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., in most cases
this is the owner of the site); or (b) the party has day-to-day
operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary
to ensure compliance with the permit conditions (e.g., they are
authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required
by the permit; in most cases this is the general contractor (as defined
in Appendix A) of the project).'' See Parts 1.1.1(a) and (b) of the
2017 CGP.
    After the EPA issued the final 2017 CGP, petitioners brought to the
Agency's attention that adding the phrase ``in most cases'' followed by
examples of who may be considered an operator might cause further
confusion to a party trying to determine if it is an operator or not
because those examples would not, in every instance, qualify as
operators. For example, with respect to the language added to the Part
1.1.1(a) definition of operator (``e.g., in most cases this is the
owner of the site.''), the EPA did not intend to indicate that, in
every instance, the owner of a site is always considered an operator.
The EPA acknowledges that there may be instances where a site owner
does not have operational control over construction plans and
specifications, and therefore would not be an operator and would not be
responsible for seeking permit coverage. Rather than suggesting who
might be considered an operator ``in most cases,'' the EPA proposes to
remove the examples from both Part 1.1.1(a) and (b), and allow parties
to rely solely on the substantive definition of operator for
determining if they should seek permit coverage. See Part 1.1.1 of the
draft modified permit.
    2. Aligning language of three requirements with the C&D rule--The
EPA proposes to adjust the wording of two erosion and sediment control
requirements and one pollution prevention requirement in the 2017 CGP
to clarify their intent:
     The current requirement in Part 2.2.6 (Minimize Dust)
reads as follows: ``On areas of exposed soil, the operator must
minimize the generation of dust through the appropriate application of
water or other dust suppression techniques.'' The accompanying fact
sheet discusses how this requirement is intended to minimize the
discharge of sediment in stormwater from the generation of dust and how
dust suppression techniques prevent dust from being generated,
minimizing the potential for the dust to accumulate where it is likely
to discharge from the site in stormwater discharges. To more precisely
convey that dust control is important for preventing sediment from
being discharged in stormwater, consistent with the C&D rule at 40 CFR
450.21(a)(5), the EPA proposes to modify the requirement to read, with
the addition denoted in italicized text: ``On areas of exposed soil,
minimize dust through the appropriate application of water or other
dust suppression techniques to control the generation of pollutants
that could be discharged in stormwater from the site.'' See Part 2.2.6
of the draft modified permit.
     The current requirement in Part 2.2.11 (Minimize erosion
of stormwater conveyance channels and their embankments . . .) reads as
follows: ``Minimize erosion of stormwater conveyance channels and their
embankments, outlets, adjacent streambanks, slopes, and downstream
waters. Use erosion controls and velocity dissipation devices within
and along the length of any stormwater conveyance channel and at any
outlet to slow down runoff to minimize erosion.'' Footnote 24 to this
requirement states: ``Examples of velocity dissipation devices include
check dams, sediment traps, riprap, and grouted riprap at outlets.''
The accompanying fact sheet explains that this requirement implements
the C&D ELG to ``control stormwater volume and velocity to minimize
soil erosion in order to minimize pollutant discharges'' (40 CFR
450.21(a)(1)), to ``control stormwater discharges. . . to minimize
channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of
discharge points'' (40 CFR 450.21(a)(2)), to ``minimize the amount of
soil exposed during construction activity'' (40 CFR 450.21(a)(3)), and
to ``minimize the disturbance of steep slopes'' (40 CFR 450.21(a)(4)).
To streamline this requirement to more precisely focus on controlling
stormwater discharges to minimize erosion at discharge points and to
align it with the text of the C&D rule at 40 CFR 450.21(a)(2), the EPA
proposes to modify the requirement to read as follows: ``Control
stormwater discharges, including both peak flowrates and total
stormwater volume, to minimize channel and streambank erosion and scour
in the immediate vicinity of discharge points.'' Footnote 24 would be
revised to read as follows: ``Examples of control measures that can be
used to comply with this requirement include the use of erosion
controls and/or velocity dissipation devices (e.g., check dams,
sediment traps), within and along the length of a stormwater conveyance
and at the outfall to slow down runoff.'' See Part 2.2.11 of the draft
modified permit.
     The current requirement in Part 2.3.3(a) regarding
storage, handling, and disposal of building products, materials, and
wastes reads as follows: ``For building materials and building
products, provide either (1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting, temporary
roofs) to minimize the exposure of these products to precipitation and
to stormwater, or (2) a similarly effective means designed to minimize
the discharge of pollutants from these areas.'' One objective the EPA
had during the proposal of the 2017 CGP was to streamline the permit as
much as possible so that the permit itself was limited to the actual
requirements, while explanatory text or notes were moved to the fact
sheet. During this streamlining process, the EPA omitted a note from
the 2017 CGP that previously appeared in the 2012 CGP in the equivalent
section of the permit (i.e., Part <IP_ADDRESS>). The 2012 CGP provision read
as follows: ``Note: These requirements do not apply to those products,
materials, or wastes that are not a source of stormwater contamination
or that are designed to be exposed to stormwater.'' Although the EPA
omitted this note in the 2017 CGP, the Agency incorporated by reference
the relevant fact sheet discussion from the 2012 CGP, which explained
that ``[t]hese requirements implement the 40 CFR 450.21(d)(2)
requirement to `minimize the exposure of building materials, building
products,

construction wastes, trash, landscape materials, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, detergents . . . present on the site to
precipitation and to stormwater.' The permit clarifies that the staging
or storage of construction materials, building products, or wastes,
which are either not a source of contamination to stormwater or are
designed to be exposed to stormwater, are not subject to this
requirement.'' Therefore, while the EPA incorporated by reference in
the 2017 CGP fact sheet the exception to Part 2.3.3(a) for building
materials that are not a source of contamination or are designed to be
exposed to stormwater, the permit requirement in Part 2.3.3(a) did not
explicitly state this as it appears in 40 CFR 450.21(d)(2). To avoid
any confusion this omission might cause, the EPA proposes to modify the
requirement to read, with the addition denoted in italicized text, as
follows: ``For building materials and building products, provide either
(1) cover (e.g., plastic sheeting, temporary roofs) to minimize the
exposure of these products to precipitation and to stormwater, or (2) a
similarly effective means designed to minimize the discharge of
pollutants from these areas. Minimization of exposure is not required
in cases where the exposure to precipitation and to stormwater will not
result in a discharge of pollutants, or where exposure of a specific
material or product poses little risk of stormwater contamination (such
as final products and materials intended for outdoor use).'' See Part
2.3.3(a) of the proposed modified permit.
    3. Clarifying individual operator responsibility in multiple
operator arrangements--The EPA proposes to modify the 2017 CGP to
clarify an individual operator's legal responsibility for permit
compliance in situations where there are multiple operators who divide
permit responsibilities. In particular, the EPA proposes to remove
references to joint and several liability from the current permit since
they are, in the Agency's view, an inaccurate explanation of what the
permit compliance duties are for multiple operators who share
implementation responsibilities under the permit.
    In addition, the EPA proposes to clarify that operators who divide
responsibilities do not have to duplicate permit-related functions if
one operator is appropriately implementing the requirement for the rest
of the operators to be in full compliance with the permit. In the
proposed modification, the permit would state that, where there are
multiple operators associated with the same site, they may develop a
group Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) instead of multiple
individual SWPPPs, but regardless of whether there is a group SWPPP or
multiple individual SWPPPs, each operator is responsible for compliance
with the permit's terms and conditions, notwithstanding how the
SWPPP(s) may divide each operator's responsibilities. This would apply
to a scenario where there are multiple operators associated with the
same site through a common plan of development or sale (such as a
housing development) at which a shared control exists. In this
scenario, the operators may develop a group SWPPP instead of multiple
individual SWPPPs, and divide amongst themselves various permit-related
functions provided that each SWPPP, or a group SWPPP, documents which
operator will perform each permit-related function, including those
related to the installation and maintenance of the shared control.
Regardless of whether there is a group SWPPP or multiple individual
SWPPPs, all operators are legally responsible for compliance with the
permit, notwithstanding how the SWPPP(s) may divide each operator's
individual responsibilities. In other words, if Operator A relies on
Operator B to satisfy its permit obligations, Operator A does not have
to duplicate those permit-related functions if Operator B is
implementing them for both operators to be in compliance with the
permit. However, Operator A remains responsible for permit compliance
if Operator B fails to implement any measures necessary for Operator A
to comply with the permit. See Part 1.1.1, footnote 1; Part 7.1,
footnote 53 (which the EPA now proposes to combine with footnote 52);
the accompanying fact sheet explanation for these Parts; and Appendix A
Definitions for ``Shared Control'' of the proposed modified permit.

IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts

    Due to the narrow scope of this proposed permit modification and
the focus on clarifying the intent of certain requirements rather than
changing the underlying requirement itself, the EPA does not expect any
change in economic impact from this proposed permit modification. It is
therefore unnecessary for the EPA to revise the economic analysis that
was prepared for the final 2017 CGP. A copy of the EPA's economic
analysis, titled ``Cost Impact Analysis for the 2017 Construction
General Permit (CGP),'' is available in the docket for this proposed
permit modification.

V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this
action is not significant under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

VI. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Discharges From Construction Activities

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4307h), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations
(40 CFR part 15), and the EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA (40
CFR part 6), the Agency has determined that the modifications to the
2017 CGP are eligible for a categorical exclusion requiring
documentation under 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). This category consists of
``actions involving reissuance of a NPDES permit for a new source
providing the conclusions of the original NEPA document are still valid
(including the appropriate mitigation), there will be no degradation of
the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not change or are
more environmentally protective.'' 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). The EPA
completed an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(EA/FONSI) for the previous 2012 CGP and issued a categorical exclusion
under 40 CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv) for the 2017 reissuance. The EPA
determined the analysis and conclusions regarding the potential
environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and potential
mitigation included in the EA/FONSI were still valid for the 2017
reissuance of the CGP because the permit conditions are either the same
or, in some cases, are more environmentally protective.
    As stated in Section II of this Federal Register Notice on the
Background on the Permit and Proposed Modification, the proposed
modification to the 2017 CGP, if finalized, would remove examples of
operators in the definition of operator; align three requirements that
implement the C&D rule more closely with the ELG text; and clarify the
roles and responsibilities of individual operators in multiple operator
arrangements. The proposed changes in this modification would simplify
the permit language and accompanying fact sheet explanation but would
not affect the substantive requirements, applicability,

implementation, or enforceability of the permit's current requirements.
Therefore, the same analysis and conclusions found in the EA/FONSI for
the 2012 CGP still stand for this modification of the 2017 CGP.
    Actions may be categorically excluded if the action fits within a
category of action that is eligible for exclusion and the proposed
action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances. The EPA has
reviewed the proposed action and determined that the modification of
the 2017 CGP does not involve any extraordinary circumstances listed in
40 CFR 6.204(b)(1)-(b)(10). Prior to the issuance of the final
modification of the 2017 CGP, the EPA Responsible Official will
document the application of the categorical exclusion and will make it
available to the public on the Agency's website at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/nepa/search. If new
information or changes in the draft modified permit involve or relate
to at least one of the extraordinary circumstances or otherwise
indicate that the permit may not meet the criteria for categorical
exclusion, the EPA will prepare an EA or Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).

VII. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    Consistent with the EPA's previous determination for the 2017 CGP,
this proposed modification to the 2017 CGP, if finalized, would not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because the requirements
in the draft modified permit would apply equally to all construction
projects that disturb one or more acres in areas where the Agency is
the permitting authority, and the erosion and sediment control proposed
provisions increase the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations.

VIII. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed action.
    In compliance with Executive Order 13175, the EPA consulted with
tribal officials during the development of 2017 CGP to gain an
understanding of and, where necessary, address any areas of the draft
permit that may affect tribal interest. In the course of this
consultation, the EPA conducted several outreach activities with tribal
officials which are detailed in the Federal Register Notice for the
final 2017 CGP (82 FR 6534). During the finalization of 2017 CGP, the
EPA also completed the CWA Section 401 certification procedures with
all applicable tribes where the permit applies (see Appendix B of the
2017 CGP).
    As part of this proposed modification, the EPA reviewed the tribal
conditions that were incorporated into the 2017 CGP under Section 401
certifications to identify any requirements that this proposed action
might affect. See Part 9 of the 2017 CGP. Only two tribal conditions
reference a current permit requirement that is subject to this proposed
modification, Part 2.2.11 (Minimize erosion of stormwater conveyance
channels and their embankments . . .):
     The following condition applies only to discharges on the
Pueblo of Isleta Reservation: ``Under Minimize erosion, a permittee
must secure permission from the Pueblo or affected Pueblo of Isleta
land assignment owner if a dissipation device needs to be placed up- or
down-elevation of a given construction site. CGP 2.2.11 at pg. 11.''
See Part <IP_ADDRESS>(j) of the 2017 CGP.
     The following condition applies only to discharges on the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians Reservation: ``To the extent feasible,
utilize vegetated, upland areas of the site to infiltrate dewatering
water before discharge. At all points where dewatering water is
discharged, comply with the velocity dissipation requirements of Part
2.2.11 of EPA's 2017 General Construction Stormwater Permit. Examples
of velocity dissipation devices include check dams, sediment traps,
riprap, and grouted riprap at outlets.'' See Part <IP_ADDRESS>(i) of the
2017 CGP.
    As stated in Section II of this Federal Register Notice, the
proposed modification to the 2017 CGP, if finalized, would remove
examples of operators in the definition of operator; align three
requirements that implement the C&D rule more closely with the ELG
text, including the requirement in Part 2.2.11; and clarify the roles
and responsibilities of individual operators in multiple operator
arrangements. The proposed changes in this modification would simplify
the permit language and accompanying fact sheet explanation but would
not affect the substantive requirements, applicability, implementation,
or enforceability of the permit's current requirements. Due to the
narrow scope of this proposed permit modification and the focus on
clarifying the intent of certain requirements rather than changing the
underlying requirement itself, the proposed action would not change the
interpretation or implementation of the tribal conditions, in
particular those referencing Part 2.2.11, and therefore any tribal
impacts from this proposed modification would be limited.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Javier Laureano, Ph.D.,
Director, Clean Water Division, EPA Region 2.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Carmen R. Guerrero-Perez,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Catharine McManus,
Acting Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Jeaneanne M. Gettle,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 4.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Deborah C. Baltazar,
Acting Division Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
David F. Garcia, P.E.,
Deputy Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Jeffery Robichaud,
Division Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA
Region 7.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Darcy O'Connor,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Water Protection, EPA
Region 8.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Tom[aacute]s Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.

    Dated: November 28, 2018.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-26916 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28310-28311]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4421-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4421-DR), dated

March 23, 2019, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 7, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
March 23, 2019.

    Louisa County for Individual Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-12832 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


39718 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Notices Application for Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   8), the Notification of Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   8A), and the Pesticides Report for Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   16). Application for Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments information, collected on EPA Form 3540   8, is a one time requirement for all pesticide producing establishments. The reporting of pesticide production information collected on the Pesticides Report for Pesticide Producing Establishments, EPA Form 3540   16, is required within 30 days of receipt of the Notification of Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   8A); and then annually thereafter, on or before March 1. The information is entered and stored in EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA)/ Office of Compliance ( OC) Section Seven Tracking System ( SSTS), a computerized data processing and record keeping system. The Office of Compliance/ OECA collects the establishment and pesticide production information for compliance oversight and risk assessment. The information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and compliance staffs, OECA, and the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) within the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS), as well as the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA), the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), other Federal agencies, States under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements, and the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 11/ 26/ 2001 ( 66 FR 59017), and no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be an average of 18 minutes for a one time response for the Application for Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   8), and 1 hour and 26 minutes for the annual yearly response for the Pesticides Report for Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   16). There is no public burden associated with the Notification of Registration of Pesticide Producing Establishments ( EPA Form 3540   8A) because EPA completes this form. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The burden associated with this ICR is described below: Respondents/ Affected Entities: Pesticide producing establishments. Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,412. Frequency of Response: One time and yearly. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 17,959 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden: $ 0. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0160.07 and OMB Control No. 2070   0078 in any correspondence.

Dated: May 29, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   14486 Filed 6   7   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0114; FRL   7183   4]

Exposure Modeling Work Group; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Exposure Modeling Work Group ( EMWG) will hold a 1   day meeting on June 18, 2002. This notice announces the location and time for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. DATE: The meeting will be held on June 18, 2002, from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the George Washington Carver Center, Room 4223, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James N. Carleton, Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5736; fax number: ( 703) 308   6309; e mail address: carleton. jim@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to Tribes with pesticide programs or pesticide interests. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations,'' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP   2002   0114. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information ( CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which VerDate May< 23> 2002 20: 20 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNN1 39719 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Notices includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805.

II. Tentative Agenda:

This unit provides tentative agenda topics for the 1   day meeting. 1. Welcome and introductions. 2. Old action items. 3. Discussion of purpose of EMWG. 4. Update on screening concentration in ground water ( SCI GROW). 5. Update on basin scale modeling. 6. Fate database structure. 7. Rice modeling and new Environmental Fate Effects Division Model. 8. Update on Watershed Regression for Pesticides ( WARP). 9. Overview of EFED's procedure for developing new scenarios.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: June 5, 2002. Elizabeth Leovey, Acting Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 02   14618 Filed 6   6   02; 1: 50 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0109; FRL   7183   3]

Technical Briefing on the Draft Revised Organophosphate Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment; Notice of Public Meeting; Changes and Additions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA previously announced in the Federal Register of May 15, 2002 ( 67 FR 34707) ( FRL   6836   3), a public technical briefing on the revisions to the preliminary organophosphate pesticide cumulative risk assessment, followed the next day by a public meeting of the CARAT Workgroup on Cumulative Risk Assessment/ Public Participation Process. The location of the CARAT Cumulative Risk Assessment/ Public Participation Process Workgroup meeting on June 19, 2002, has been changed to be the same as that of the technical briefing. In addition, a meeting of the CARAT Workgroup on Transition has been added on June 20, 2002. All three meetings will be held in the same location. DATES: The technical briefing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, from 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. In addition, EPA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture will hold public meetings of two CARAT Workgroups: Cumulative Risk Assessment/ Public Participation Process Workgroup on Wednesday, June 19, 2002, from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., and the Workgroup on Transition on Thursday, June 20, 2002, from 1 p. m. to 5 p. m. ADDRESSES: The technical briefing and both CARAT Workgroup meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Select, 480 King St., Old Town Alexandria, VA. The telephone number for the hotel is ( 703) 549   6080. The hotel is located about 10 blocks from the King Street Metro Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Karen Angulo, Special Review and Registration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703   308   8004; email address: angulo. karen@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency believes that a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in technical briefings on organophosphate pesticides, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates, the chemical industry, pesticide users, and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations,'' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. To access information about organophosphate pesticides, you can also go directly to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ op: In addition, information about the cumulative process and the preliminary organophosphate cumulative risk assessment documents are found at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record under docket ID number OPP   2002   0109. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information ( CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805.

II. How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting?

This meeting is open to the public. Outside statements by observers are welcome. Verbal statements will be limited to 3 to 5 minutes, and it is preferred that only one person per organization present the statement. Any person who wishes to file a written statement may do so immediately before or after the meeting. These statements will become part of the public version of the official record and will be available for public inspection at the address listed in Unit I.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

VerDate May< 23> 2002 20: 20 Jun 07, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 10JNN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 10JNN1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40342-40343]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89196; File No. SR-BOX-2020-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility

June 30, 2020.
    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 June 22, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options
Market LLC (``BOX'') facility. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxoptions.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule on BOX facility to
make non-substantive, clerical changes in order to conform the Fee
Schedule with the Exchange's adoption of the new Penny Interval
Program.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete references to
the Penny Pilot Program \6\ and Non-Penny Pilot Program and replace
those references with Penny Interval Program or Non-Penny Interval
Program throughout the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88959 (May 27,
2020), 85 FR 33769 (June 2, 2020) (SR-BOX-2020-17).
    \6\ See BOX Rule 7260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the proposed conforming non-substantive changes
would add clarity, transparency and consistency to the Exchange's Fee

Schedule. The Exchange believes that market participants would benefit
from the increased clarity, and thereby reduce any potential for
investor confusion. The Exchange notes, it is not proposing to modify
any amount of fees assessed or change the application of any fees; the
Exchange is simply making non-substantive, clerical updates to the
wording of its Fee Schedule.
Effective date
    The Exchange's Penny Interval Program \9\ will not become operative
until July 1, 2020, therefore, the Exchange proposes to implement the
changes pursuant to this filing on same day--July 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to make non-
substantive changes to the BOX Fee Schedule, thereby reducing confusion
and making the Exchange's Fee Schedule easier to understand. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will serve to promote
clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace
and facilitating investor protection. As such, 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

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

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 \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder. The Exchange believes that the proposal is non-
controversial, does not pose an undue burden on competition, and does
not raise any novel issues because the proposed changes are designed to
conform the language in BOX's Fee Schedule to the recently adopted (and
soon to be operative) Penny Interval Program. According to the
Exchange, the proposal would allow the Exchange to maintain uniform
language between its Rulebook and Fee Schedule, which the Exchange
believes would benefit market participants because it would provide
consistency and clarity in these documents. Further, the proposal does
not make any substantive changes to the amount or application of any
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to implement the Penny Interval Program
on July 1, 2020 and has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay for this filing, so that the proposed changes will
become operative on the same date that the Penny Interval Program
becomes operative.\12\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the Exchange to modify the BOX
Fee Schedule to align the terminology used therein to reflect the
terminology of the Penny Interval Program, which will be operative on
July 1, 2020. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change as operative on July 1, 2020 to correspond with the operative
date of the Penny Interval Program.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 5.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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- BOX-2020-25 on the subject line
Paper Comments:
     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2020-25. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2020-25 and should be submitted on
or before July 28, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14493 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P