[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72541-72545]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98761; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

October 16, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 4, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
September 29, 2023 (SR-CBOE-2023-076) [sic]. On October 4, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 17 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 19% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents only approximately 4% of the market
share.\4\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (September 25, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange assesses a standard
transaction fee of $0.48 per contract for Customer orders in Penny
Securities, excluding SPY and IWM, that remove liquidity, yielding fee
code ``PC''. The Exchange assesses a standard transaction fee of $0.45
per contract for Customer SPY and IWM orders that remove liquidity,
yielding fee code ``PR''. The Fee Codes and Associated Fees section of
the Fees

Schedule also provides for certain fee codes associated with certain
order types and market participants that provide for various other fees
or rebates. In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange
also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with opportunities
to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental
incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the standard transaction fee
applicable to fee code PC from $0.48 per contract to $0.45 per contract
(same as current fee code PR), and to amend the definition of fee code
PC so that such fee code (and corresponding transaction fee) applies to
all Customer orders in Penny Securities that remove liquidity
(including SPY and IWM). The Exchange also proposes to eliminate fee
code ``PR''. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to delete the
Customer, Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back Office Penny Take Volume
Tiers, set forth in Footnote 14 of the Fee Schedule and applicable to
orders yielding fee code PD.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders yielding fee code PD are Firm, Broker Dealer and
Joint Back Office orders that remove liquidity in Penny Program
Securities and are charged a standard transaction fee of $0.48. The
Exchange proposes to make corresponding changes to the Standard
Rates table included in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.85 per contract for
Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities that add liquidity, yielding
fee code ``NY''. The Exchange now proposes to increase the rebate
provided for Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities that add liquidity
and yield fee code NY, to $1.05. The Exchange also proposes to delete
the Customer Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers, set forth in Footnote 12 to
the Fee Schedule and applicable to orders yielding fee code NY, since
under the proposed rule change the Exchange is now providing a rebate
for orders yielding fee code NY equal to the highest tier of the
program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange proposes to make corresponding changes to the
Standard Rates table included in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses a standard transaction fee of $1.10
for Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities that remove liquidity,
yielding fee code ``NP''. The Exchange proposes to increase the
standard transaction fee for Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny
Securities that remove liquidity and yield fee code NP, to $1.15. The
Exchange also proposes to eliminate the Non-Customer Non-Penny Take
Volume Tiers program set forth in Footnote 13 to the Fee Schedule,
applicable to orders yielding fee code NP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange proposes to make corresponding changes to the
Standard Rates table included in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange currently offers five Market Maker Penny Add
Volume Tiers under Footnote 6 of the Fee Schedule, including on Market
Maker Cross-Asset Add Tier, which provide additional rebates between
$0.31 and $0.43 per contract for qualifying Market Maker orders (i.e.,
that yield fee code PM) \8\ where a Member meets certain liquidity
thresholds. For example, current Tier 2 offers an enhanced rebate of
$0.38 per contract for qualifying orders where a Member has an ADAV \9\
in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.25% of average OCV;
\10\ Tier 3 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.39 per contract for
qualifying orders where a Member has an ADAV in Market Maker orders
greater than or equal to 0.40% of average OCV: and Tier 4 offers an
enhanced rebate of $0.43 per contract for qualifying orders where a
Member has an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to
0.60% of average OCV. The Exchange now proposes to amend the Market
Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers by updating the criteria for Tiers 2, 3,
and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Orders yielding fee code PM are Market Maker orders that add
liquidity in Penny Program Securities and are offered a rebate of
$0.29.
    \9\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added, per day.
    \10\ ``OCC Customer Volume'' or ``OCV'' means the total equity
and ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the
fees apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a
scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change amends the criteria in Tier
2 so that a Member must have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater
than or equal to 0.35% of average OCV; amends the criteria in Tier 3 so
that a Member must have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or
equal to 0.35% of average OCV; and amends the criteria in Tier 4 so
that a Member must have an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or
equal to 0.65% of average OCV. The proposed rule change does not alter
the enhanced rebates offered under each tier.
    The proposed changes to the criteria in Tiers 2, 3, and 4 are
designed to continue to provide an incremental incentive for Members to
strive for the highest tier levels, which provide increasingly higher
rebates for such transactions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members. Additionally, competing exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based
upon similarly situated members achieving certain volume and/or growth
thresholds, as well as assess similar fees or rebates for similar types
of orders, to that of the Exchange.

    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed changes to fee
code PC to reduce the standard transaction fee and make the fee code
applicable to all customer orders in Penny Securities that remove
liquidity (including SPY and IWM), is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The current fee code PC already applies to
customer orders in Penny Securities that remove liquidity, except for
SPY and IWM (which yield fee code PR), and will apply in the same
manner to liquidity removing IWM and SPY Customer orders. As amended,
fee code PC assesses the same rate, $0.45, as fee code PR, which is
eliminated under the proposed rule change. Thus, the Exchange believes
the proposed change is reasonable as Members will continue to pay the
same fee for liquidity removing IWM and SPY Customer orders. Further,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as fee code PC applies automatically and
uniformly to all Customer orders in Penny Securities that remove
liquidity.
    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a lower fee for Customer orders in Penny
Securities that add liquidity, as compared to other market
participants, because customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Moreover, the options industry has
a long history of providing preferential pricing to customers, and the
Exchange's current Fee Schedule currently does so in many places, as do
the fees structures of multiple other exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BZX Options Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated
Fees. See also Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Transaction
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to increase the
rebate provided for Customer orders that add liquidity in Non-Penny
Securities is reasonably designed to further incentivize Members to
submit Customer orders that add liquidity in Non-Penny Securities,
thereby providing liquid and active markets, which facilitates tighter
spreads, increased trading opportunities, and overall enhanced market
quality to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as all Members that submit Customer orders that
add liquidity in Non-Penny Securities and yield fee code NY will
receive the rebate.
    The Exchange believes eliminating the Customer Non-Penny Add Volume
Tiers under Footnote 12 is reasonable because the Exchange is not
required to maintain this program. While the Exchange is not required
to provide Members an opportunity to receive reduced fees or enhanced
rebates, Members may still have other opportunities to obtain enhanced
rebates for orders in Non-Penny Securities, such as via the Non-Penny
Add Volume Tiers (via Footnotes 7, 8, and 11 of the Fee Schedule).
Further, the Exchange believes the Customer Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers
may no longer incentivize Members, as the rebate offered under amended
fee code NY is equal to the highest rebate available under the Customer
Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers. The Exchange believes that eliminating the
Customer Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members. Further,
the Exchange notes that the proposed changes will not adversely impact
any Member's ability to otherwise qualify for reduced fees or enhanced
rebates offered under other programs in the Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to increase the
standard fee for Non-Customer orders that remove liquidity in Non-Penny
Securities is reasonable because it is a modest increase in this
transaction rate for these orders. Additionally, the increased fee is
in line with fees assessed for similar transactions at other
exchanges.\16\ The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Fee Schedule, Transaction Fee for
Electronic Executions--Per Contract, which provides that Firms and
Broker Dealers that remove liquidity are assessed $1.10 per contract
in Non-Penny Issues. See also MIAX Pearl Options Exchange Fee
Schedule, which provides Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-
MIAX Pearl Market Makers that remove liquidity are assessed between
$1.09 and $1.10 per contract for Non-Penny classes, depending on
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating the Non-Customer Non-Penny Take
Volume Tiers under Footnote 13 and Customer, Firm, Broker Dealer and
Joint Back Office Penny Take Volume Tiers under Footnote 14 is
reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain these
programs or provide Members an opportunity to receive reduced fees or
enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes that eliminating the Customer,
Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back Office Penny Take Volume Tiers and
Non-Customer Non-Penny Take Volume Tiers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members, in that,
such programs will not be available for any Member. Further, the
Exchange notes that the proposed changes will not adversely impact any
Member's ability to otherwise qualify for reduced fees or enhanced
rebates offered under other programs in the Fee Schedule.
    Finally, the Exchange believes updating the criteria for Tiers 2,
3, and 4 of the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers is reasonable as it
is designed to encourage Market Makers to increase their order flow to
the Exchange to achieve each tiers' criteria, as amended. More
specifically, the Exchange believes that updating the criteria for
Tiers 2, 3, and 4 may encourage Members to increase their ADAV in
Market Makers orders, over a modestly higher percentage of average OCV,
and encourage Members to strive to achieve higher tiers (and
corresponding higher rebates) by submitting the requisite add volume
order flow. An increase in Market Maker add volume, particularly,
facilitates tighter spreads and an increase in overall liquidity
provider activity, both of which signal additional corresponding
increase in order flow from other market participants, contributing
towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem. Indeed, increased
overall order flow benefits investors by continuing to deepen the
Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution
incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. The Exchange also believes that the proposed criteria in
Tiers 2, 3, and 4 continues to reasonably reflect the incremental
difficulty in achieving the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members,
who will have the opportunity to meet the tiers' new criteria and
receive the corresponding rebate for the tier if such criteria is met.
Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed

rule change would definitively result in any changes to particular
Market Makers qualifying for the proposed tiers, the Exchange believes
that that at least two Market Makers will reasonably be able to achieve
the proposed criteria in Tier 2, one Market Maker may be able to
achieve the proposed criteria in Tier 3, and one Market Maker may be
able to achieve the proposed criteria in Tier 4; however, the proposed
tiers are open to any Market-Maker that satisfies the tier's criteria.
Additionally, all Members are able to increase their Market Maker order
flow to attempt to achieve the new tiers' criteria. Should a Member not
meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that
corresponding enhanced rebate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to apply fee code PC to
all Customer orders that remove liquidity in all Penny Securities,
including IWM and SPY, will not impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it will apply uniformly to all Members. Further,
the Exchange believes the proposal to reduce the standard fee for
Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Securities will not
impose any burden on intramarket competition because it will apply
uniformly to all Members, in that all Members that submit orders
yielding fee codes PC will pay the same transaction fee. As discussed
above, the Exchange believes the proposed change to reduce the
transaction fee would attract additional Customer orders that remove
liquidity, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change
furthers the Securities and Exchange Commission's (the
``Commission's'') goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposal to increase the
rebate offered for Customer orders in Non-Penny Securities that add
liquidity and to increase the standard transaction fee for Non-Customer
orders in Non-Penny Securities that remove liquidity will not impose
any burden on intramarket competition, as the changes will apply
uniformly to all Members. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal
to eliminate the Customer, Firm, Broker Dealer and Joint Back Office
Penny Take Volume Tiers, Non-Customer Non-Penny Take Volume Tiers, and
Customer Non-Penny Add Volume Tiers will not impose any burden on
intramarket competition because they will no longer be available to any
Members.
    The Exchange believes the proposals to amend the criteria for Tiers
2, 3, and 4 of the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers will also not
impose any burden on intramarket competition, as they will also apply
to all Members. All Members will continue to have an opportunity to
receive rebates under various tiers. Market Maker Volume Add Tiers are
generally designed to increase the competitiveness of BZX and
incentivize participants to increase their order flow on the Exchange,
providing for additional execution opportunities for market
participants and improved price transparency. An overall increase in
add activity may provide for deeper, more liquid markets and execution
opportunities at improved prices.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a
significant departure from pricing currently offered by the Exchange or
pricing offered by other options exchanges. Members may opt to disfavor
the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them
better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and
direct their order flow, including 17 other options exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall
market. Based on publicly available information, no single options
exchange has more than 19% of the market share. Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow.
Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is 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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings

to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-081 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-CboeBZX-2023-081. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-081 and should
be submitted on or before November 13, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23141 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 15779]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (225) Rechargeable
Lithium Batter and Battery Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of Twenty-Second RTCA Special Committee 225 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Twenty-Second RTCA Special Committee 225 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 12-14, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 225. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

1. Introductions and administrative items (including DFO & RTCA
Statement) (5 min)
2. Review agenda (5 min)
3. Review and approve summary from the last Plenary (5 min)
4. Consider using DO-235 Thermal Runaway definition (30 min)
5. Discuss need for matrix that correlates DO-347 to DO-311A (30 min)
6. Additional business
7. Adjourn to working group
    a. Tasks to accomplish
    i. Continue updating draft DO-311A
8. Review Plenary action items (5 min)

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

1. Review agenda, other actions (5 min)
2. Adjourn to working group
3. Review Plenary action items (5 min)

Thursday, April 14, 2016

1. Review agenda, other actions (5 min)
2. Establish Agenda for next Plenary (5 min)
3. Adjourn to working group
4. Working Group Report (5 min)
5. Review Plenary action items (5 min)
6. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-06691 Filed 3-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14608-14611]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05557]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0727; FRL-9960-32-Region 9]

Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5);
California; North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
limited Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) to apply to the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management
District (North Coast Unified AQMD or District) in California. This
limited FIP will implement provisions to regulate fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) under the CAA Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program within the District. The EPA previously
issued two findings of failure to submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) addressing these PSD requirements and also issued a partial
disapproval action applicable to the North Coast Unified AQMD portion
of the California SIP that triggered the duty under CAA section
110(c)(1) for the EPA to promulgate this limited FIP. Under this final
rule, the EPA will be the CAA PSD permitting authority for any new or
modified major sources subject to PSD review for PM2.5 or
its precursors within the District.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-
0727 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index for this rulemaking. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 during normal
business hours. For security purposes, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section during normal
business hours to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93872), the EPA proposed a limited FIP
for the North Coast Unified AQMD in California, which would apply the
EPA's PSD regulatory program under 40 CFR 52.21 specifically to sources
in the District subject to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5
or PM2.5 precursors. CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the EPA
Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after
the Administrator either finds that a state has failed to make a
required SIP submission or disapproves a state's SIP in whole or in
part, unless the state submits and the EPA approves a SIP that corrects
the deficiency before the Administrator promulgates the FIP. In this
case, as discussed in the EPA's proposal for this limited FIP action,
the EPA is required to promulgate this FIP for sources subject to PSD
review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors
in the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to address SIP deficiencies
relating to the PSD requirements for such sources that EPA identified
in earlier actions; California has not submitted revised rules that
resolve these deficiencies and thus we have not approved a SIP
submittal for the North Coast Unified AQMD to correct these
deficiencies.
    The requirement that the EPA promulgate this limited FIP for the
North Coast Unified AQMD stems from several actions taken previously by
the EPA in accordance with CAA requirements. In 2008, the EPA
promulgated a rulemaking finalizing regulations to implement the New
Source Review program for PM2.5 (PM2.5 NSR
Rule).\1\ The PM2.5 NSR Rule required, among other things,
that states develop SIPs addressing the PSD permitting requirements for
the regulation of major stationary sources and major modifications of
PM2.5 emissions, including such sources emitting precursors
of PM2.5. In 2010, the EPA promulgated a rulemaking amending
the PSD program regulations for PM2.5 to add provisions
governing the maximum allowable increases in ambient pollutant
concentrations (increments), with which new major stationary sources
and major modifications of PM2.5 or PM2.5
precursor emissions must demonstrate compliance as a condition of
obtaining a PSD permit (PM2.5 Increments Rule).\2\ The
PM2.5 Increments Rule requires states to submit SIPs
modifying their PSD permitting regulations to incorporate the
PM2.5 increment provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.), 73
FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).
    \2\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant
Monitoring Concentrations (SMC), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The
PM2.5 Increments Rule also promulgated several optional
revisions to the PSD permitting program which are not addressed in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 15, 2013, the EPA issued a finding of failure to submit
for the State of California in which it found that California had
failed to make an infrastructure \3\ SIP submittal providing certain
required basic program elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) that are
necessary to implement the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS).\4\ Relevant here, the EPA found that California had
not submitted a SIP to address the PSD permitting requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for areas including the North
Coast Unified AQMD. That finding resulted in a deadline of February 14,
2015, for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1)
to address the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the
State submitted, and the EPA approved, a SIP that corrected the
identified deficiencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We refer to such SIP revision submittals as
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address the
basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS.
    \4\ 78 FR 2882, 2889.
    \5\ See 78 FR at 2886.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2016, the EPA published a final rule partially
approving and partially disapproving several CAA infrastructure SIP
revisions submitted by the State of California related to the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS for ozone,
PM2.5, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2).\6\ We partially

disapproved a portion of these infrastructure SIP submittals as they
pertained to the North Coast Unified AQMD with respect to the PSD-
related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
for all of these NAAQS, in part because we found that the District's
SIP-approved PSD program did not include requirements for the
regulation of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors,
condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for
PM2.5.\7\ This infrastructure SIP partial disapproval action
also triggered a duty for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant to CAA
section 110(c)(1) to address the identified deficiencies related to the
District's PSD program for PM2.5, unless, prior to that
time, the State submitted, and the EPA approved, a SIP that corrected
the identified deficiencies.\8\ The State has not submitted a SIP
revision that would correct the North Coast Unified AQMD's SIP
deficiencies relating to the PSD program for PM2.5 and
therefore EPA has not approved such a SIP revision. Thus, for these
PM2.5 PSD requirements, the EPA remains subject to the duty
to promulgate a FIP for the District that was triggered by our January
15, 2013 finding of failure to submit and our April 1, 2016 partial
disapproval action for the infrastructure SIP requirements for the
NAAQS discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 18766.
    \7\ The EPA's April 1, 2016 partial disapproval action for
infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for the North Coast Unified AQMD was also based
on the EPA's finding that the District's SIP-approved PSD program
did not regulate oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as an ozone
precursor. 81 FR at 18773. However, we noted in that action that the
EPA had already promulgated a limited FIP on August 8, 2011 to
remedy that SIP deficiency, and thus our 2016 partial disapproval
action did not trigger a new PSD FIP obligation related to
NOX as an ozone precursor. See 81 FR at 18773, 18775; see
also 76 FR 48006 (Aug. 8, 2011).
    \8\ See 81 FR at 18775-18776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 2, 2014, the EPA published a final rule finding that
the North Coast Unified AQMD had failed to make a complete submittal to
address new requirements for PM2.5 increments in its PSD
program as required by implementing regulations that the EPA
promulgated on October 20, 2010.\9\ That finding resulted in a duty and
a deadline of October 2, 2016 for the EPA to promulgate a FIP pursuant
to CAA section 110(c)(1) to address these outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the State submitted, and the EPA approved,
a SIP that corrected the identified deficiencies. As noted above, the
EPA has not approved a SIP revision for California that would address
the requirements for PM2.5 increments in the PSD program for
the North Coast Unified AQMD, thus the EPA remains subject to the
requirement that it promulgate a FIP to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 79 FR 51913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for California
that would address the District's PM2.5 PSD program SIP
deficiencies identified in the January 15, 2013, September 2, 2014, and
April 1, 2016 EPA actions discussed above. Accordingly, as authorized
by CAA section 110(c)(1), the EPA proposed to promulgate a limited FIP
for the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to address the identified
deficiencies in the State's PSD program with respect to the regulation
of major stationary sources and major modifications of sources subject
to PSD review for emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5
precursors.

II. Public Comments

    The EPA's proposed FIP action provided a 30-day public comment
period, which closed on January 23, 2017. The EPA also preliminarily
scheduled a public hearing for January 13, 2017 to receive written and
oral comments on our proposed action, which we stated would be held
only if we received a written request for such a hearing by December
29, 2016. No one requested such a hearing during this period and
therefore the hearing was canceled. During the public comment period,
we received no comments on our proposed action.

III. EPA Action

    Under CAA section 110(c)(1) and for the reasons discussed in our
December 22, 2016 proposed rule and in the Proposed Action section of
this notice, we are finalizing the limited PSD FIP for the North Coast
Unified AQMD as proposed. CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the
Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after
the Administrator either finds that a state has failed to make a
required submission or disapproves a state's SIP in whole or in part,
unless the state submits and the EPA approves a SIP that corrects the
deficiency before the Administrator promulgates a FIP. As indicated
earlier in this notice, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for
California to regulate PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
in the North Coast Unified AQMD that would address the District's
PM2.5 PSD program deficiencies identified in the January 15,
2013, September 2, 2014, and April 1, 2016 EPA actions discussed above.
Accordingly, as authorized by CAA section 110(c)(1), the EPA is
promulgating a limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD in order to
address the identified deficiencies in the State's PSD program with
respect to the regulation of major stationary sources and major
modifications of sources subject to PSD review for emissions of
PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors.
    This limited FIP consists of the EPA regulations found in 40 CFR
52.21, including the PSD applicability provisions, with a limitation to
assure that, strictly for purposes of this rulemaking, the FIP applies
only to the regulation of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors. Accordingly, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with
the PSD permitting requirements with respect to PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors for sources within the North Coast Unified
AQMD, the EPA will serve as the PSD permitting authority.
    The EPA has previously promulgated limited CAA PSD FIPs for the
North Coast Unified AQMD to implement the federal PSD permitting
program under 40 CFR 52.21 for certain other sources and pollutants,
including the PSD program as it regulates oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) as an ozone precursor, as discussed above; these
limited FIPs remain in effect. See 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2). The EPA and the
District have entered into partial delegation agreements pursuant to 40
CFR 52.21(u), dated January 8, 1993 and October 6, 2015, whereby the
EPA has delegated authority to the District to conduct PSD review for
certain sources subject to these limited PSD FIPs. The District may
similarly seek a partial delegation of authority from the EPA, pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21(u), to conduct PSD review for the sources regulated
under this limited PSD FIP. For all other major emitting facilities and
pollutants not covered by the limited PSD FIPs applicable to the
District as specified in 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2), the North Coast Unified
AQMD will continue to serve as the PSD permitting authority under its
SIP-approved PSD program.
    This limited FIP is narrow in scope, in that it will only address
the PM2.5 PSD deficiencies for the District that were
identified in our 2016 infrastructure SIP partial disapproval action.
We note that such deficiencies include the deficiencies for PSD
requirements for PM2.5 increments that were also the focus
of the EPA's September 2, 2014 finding of failure to submit action.
Today's final limited FIP action will satisfy the remaining FIP
requirements for the North Coast Unified AQMD that were triggered by
our January 15, 2013 finding of failure to submit relating to ozone
infrastructure SIP requirements; our September 2, 2014 finding of
failure to submit related to the District's PSD requirements for
PM2.5 increments; and

our April 1, 2016 partial disapproval action for the infrastructure SIP
requirements for the NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, lead,
NO2, and SO2. This limited FIP will be codified
in 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2)(v).
    This limited FIP will remain in place until California submits a
SIP revision addressing the identified deficiencies relating to the
District's PSD program for PM2.5 and we approve that SIP
revision. The EPA is working with the North Coast Unified AQMD to
develop District rules that would address these requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations for PSD (e.g., 40 CFR 52.21)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part
9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are a single
biomass generating facility, which is currently not operating. The
Agency has determined that this single facility may experience an
impact associated with the requirements of this action, but only in the
event that the facility elects to significantly expand its operations.
The EPA is not aware of any specific new sources that would be subject
to regulation under this action in the future. We expect a negligible
financial impact on any facilities subject to the requirements of this
action because any such facility would be subject to substantially
similar, and in some respects more stringent, regulatory requirements
that are already in effect under state and federal law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While the EPA's
action will lead to the application of federal PSD regulations for
PM2.5 to sources within the North Coast Unified AQMD,
general PSD requirements for major emitting facilities with emissions
of other regulated NSR pollutants already apply within the District,
and thus the incremental impact associated with application of the
specific requirements of the PSD regulations for certain sources
emitting PM2.5 or its precursors is expected to be
relatively minor. In addition, there are few major emitting facilities
currently located in the District that would be subject to the
requirements of the FIP. The EPA is not aware of any specific new
sources that would be subject to regulation under our narrow FIP in the
future. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that this action does not
contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and that it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The FIP is not
applicable on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where
the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because, as a limited FIP establishing PSD
regulatory requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS for certain
sources located in the North Coast Unified AQMD, it implements a
previously promulgated federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. With this action, the EPA is only
implementing the PSD permitting requirements mandated by the CAA in
order to ensure compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS and
PM2.5 increments, which were promulgated in separate, prior
rulemaking actions.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section CAA 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

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

    Dated: March 14, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.270 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.270  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Those projects that are major stationary sources or major
modifications for emissions of PM2.5 or its precursors under
Sec.  52.21, and those projects that are major stationary sources under
Sec.  52.21 with the potential to emit PM2.5 or its
precursors at a rate that would meet or exceed the rates specified at
Sec.  52.21(b)(23)(i).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-05557 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5310]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1893-042 New Hampshire]

Public Service Company of New Hampshire; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

January 24, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the Merrimack River
Project, located on the Merrimack River, in Merrimack and Hillsborough
counties, New Hampshire, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental
effects of relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new
license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Merrimack River Project No. 1893''
to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact
Steve Kartalia at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1241 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20727-20728]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 2, 24, 30, 70, 90, 91, and 188

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0363]
RIN 1625-AB71

Seagoing Barges

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its direct final rule published
on December 14, 2011. The direct final rule notified the public of the
Coast Guard's intent to revise regulations for the inspection and
certification of seagoing barges to align with the language of the
applicable statutes. We are withdrawing that rule because we received
two adverse comments. That rule will not become effective as scheduled.
Instead, we plan to consider these issues in a notice of proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: The direct final rule published December 14, 2011, (76 FR
77712), is withdrawn on April 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2011-0363 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Ken Smith, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-1413, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
material in the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 14, 2011, we published a direct final rule entitled
``Seagoing Barges'' in the Federal Register (76 FR 77712). That rule
would have redefined ``seagoing barge'' in 46 CFR parts 90 and 91 and
would have revised 46 CFR parts 2, 24, 30, 70, 90, 91, and 188 to
exempt specified seagoing barges from inspection and certification to
align Coast Guard regulations with the language of the applicable
statutes.
    In 1983, section 2101(32), Public Law 98-89, 97 Stat. 500 (46
U.S.C. 2101) redefined ``seagoing barge'' as a non self-propelled
vessel of at least 100 gross tons making voyages beyond the Boundary
Line. Coast Guard regulations at 46 CFR 91.01-10(c) do not reflect the
language change and instead refer to seagoing barges as vessels ``on
the high seas or ocean.'' The withdrawn rule would have changed the
language in 46 CFR 91.01-10 from ``on the high seas or ocean'' to
``beyond the Boundary Line'' to reflect the language of Public Law 98-
89.
    In 1993, Congress exempted from inspection seagoing barges that are
unmanned and (1) not carrying hazardous material as cargo, or (2)
carrying a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk.
(See Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat.
2419 (46 U.S.C. 3302(m).) Also in 1993, we stopped requiring the
specified seagoing barges to be inspected in compliance with Public Law
103-206. However, we did not amend our regulations to reflect the
exemption. That withdrawn rule would have changed the language
concerning seagoing barges in 46 CFR 90.05-25, and 46 CFR 91.01-10, and
in the vessel inspection tables in 46 CFR parts 2, 24, 30, 70, 90, and
188, to reflect the exemption created by Public Law 103-206.

    We published the withdrawn rule as a direct final rule under 33 CFR
1.05-55 because we considered the rule to be noncontroversial and
therefore did not expect any adverse comments. In the direct final
rule, we notified the public of our intent to make the rule effective
on April 12, 2012, unless an adverse comment or notice of intent to
submit an adverse comment was received on or before February 13, 2012.
    We received two submissions from the same commenter during the
comment period, and we determined that both are adverse comments, as
explained below. As such, we are withdrawing the direct final rule. We
plan to consider the issues raised in the adverse comments in a notice
of proposed rulemaking.

Withdrawal

    We received two comments in response to the direct final rule. In
the first comment, the commenter stated that without a definition of
the term ``oil in bulk,'' the rule would be ineffective. In the second
comment, the commenter stated that without a definition of the term
``manned,'' the rule would be ineffective. In the direct final rule, we
explained that a comment is considered adverse if the commenter
explains why this rule or part of this rule would be inappropriate,
including a challenge to its underlying premise or approach, or would
be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. We have determined
that both comments received are adverse comments.
    In the first comment, the commenter expressed concern that, without
a definition of ``in bulk,'' the rule does not make it clear whether a
barge that carries flammable or combustible liquids, including oil, in
bulk for use by the vessel and not as cargo, is exempt from inspection
and certification. Furthermore, the commenter asked at what quantity of
such flammable or combustible liquid carried in bulk is the barge no
longer considered exempt under the rule. The commenter also expressed
concern that without a definition of ``in bulk,'' barges that carry
flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk as cargo would
be subject to inspection regardless of how small the quantity.
    In the second comment, the commenter requested a definition for the
term ``manned,'' and stated that without such a definition, the rule
would be ineffective. The commenter was concerned that there are times
when barges that do not require manning to operate have personnel on
board to prepare the barges for transfer and off-load, and that without
a definition in the rule, it is not clear whether barges with personnel
permissively on board require inspection or are exempt.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
494, 502, 525, 33 CFR 1.05-55, and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Because we consider these comments to be adverse, we are
withdrawing the direct final rule. We plan to seek comment on these
concerns in a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking.

J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-8310 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62368]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0855]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Tacony, PA and
Palmyra, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the SR 73/Tacony-Palmyra bridge, across
the Delaware River, mile 107.2, at Tacony, PA and Palmyra, NJ. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance and repairs.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on Monday, September 12,
2016 through 6 p.m. on Friday, September 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0855] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Burlington County Bridge Commission,
who owns and operates the SR 73/Tacony-Palmyra bridge, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in
33 CFR 117.716, to facilitate electrical maintenance and repairs to the
bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the
closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Friday,
September 12, 2016 through September 16, 2016 and September 19, 2016
through September 23, 2016. The bridge will also remain in the closed-
to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on alternative work dates
from September 26, 2016 through September 30, 2016. The bridge is a
double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-
navigation position of 50 feet above mean high water.
    The Delaware River is used by a variety of vessels including U.S.
government and public vessels, large commercial vessels, tug and barge
traffic and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully
coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this
temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed-to-
navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able
to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for
vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators
can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 2, 2016.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-21692 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P