[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59215-59216]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20601]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0664; FRL-9948-37-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Commercial Ethylene Oxide
Sterilization and Fumigation Operations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Commercial Ethylene
Oxide Sterilization and Fumigation Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart
O) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1666.10, OMB Control No.

2060-0283), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through August 31, 2016. Public comments were previously
requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency
may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 28,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0664, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes,
or additions, to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart O. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit
initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and
results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Ethylene oxide sterilization and
fumigation facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart O).
    Estimated number of respondents: 125 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 9,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,630,000 (per year), which includes
$681,000 in either annualized capital/startup or operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in
respondent burden in this ICR from the most recently approved ICR. This
is due to several reasons: (1) This ICR assumes all existing sources
will have to re-familiarize with the regulatory requirements each year;
(2) there is an estimated increase in the respondent universe since the
last ICR, with an addition of two new sources per year; and (3) the
number of responses associated with waiver request and alternative
method/monitoring was corrected for consistency. This results in an
increase in the labor hours, costs, and total number of responses.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-20601 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 61669]
[DOCID:fr25oc05-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of October 24, 2005:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 27, 2005 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session and that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
October 27, 2005 will be:

Formal orders of private investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; and
Opinions.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21355 Filed 10-21-05; 11:26 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8779-8780]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1022; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-81]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class
E Airspace Extension; Port Angeles, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E surface area, Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and create
Class E airspace as an extension to the Class E surface area at William
R Fairchild International Airport, Port Angeles, WA. Following a review
of the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to modify the existing
airspace for William R Fairchild Airport for the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-1022; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-81, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/cfr/ibr_locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify the existing Class E airspace and establish new
Class E airspace as an extension to the Class E surface area at William
R Fairchild International Airport, Port Angeles, WA, in support of IFR
operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2019-1022; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-81) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address
and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2019-1022; Airspace Docket No. 19-ANM-81.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed
in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order

7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E
airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace
description for William R Fairchild International Airport, Port
Angeles, WA. This action is being submitted coincidental with an FAA
proposal, Docket No. FAA-2019-1023; 19-ANM-94 to establish Class E
airspace for Port Angeles CGAS, Port Angeles, WA. That action would
provide the airspace needed for independent operations at Port Angeles
CGAS to facilitate training and mission accomplishment. This action
would modify the airspace at William R Fairchild International Airport,
Port Angeles, WA, to only that airspace needed for their operations.
The Class E surface area would be modified to include the airspace
within 4.1 miles of the airport from the 235[deg] bearing clockwise to
the 120[deg] bearing and exclude the airspace within 1.5 miles of the
Port Angeles CGAS. This exclusion would allow independent air traffic
operations at the Port Angeles CGAS when weather conditions at this
location varies from those at the William R Fairchild International
Airport.
    A Class E extension to the surface area would be established 2
miles both sides of the 284[deg] bearing extending from the 4.1-mile
radius to 8 miles west of the airport. This would provide the airspace
required for the RNAV approach to runway 8, as aircraft descend through
1000 feet AGL.
    The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL would be
modified to within 4.1 miles of William R Fairchild International
Airport and that area 3.1 miles on both sides of the 284[deg] bearing
from the airport to 11 miles west. This area would provide airspace for
the RNAV and the ILS Approach to runway 8, as aircraft descend through
1500 feet.
    To the southeast, the airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL
would be modified to 1-mile north and 4 miles south of the 105[deg]
bearing from the 4.1-mile radius to 7 miles from the airport.
    This action would also remove the Class E surface airspace 3 miles
north and 2.2 miles south of the William R Fairchild international
Airport 079[deg] bearing extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 11.4
miles east of the airport, as it is not needed for operations at
William R. Fairchild airport. This airspace would support IFR
operations at William R Fairchild Airport, Port Angeles, WA.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004
and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019 and effective
September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on
September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Given this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Port Angeles, WA [Amended]

William R. Fairchild International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]07'13'' N, long. 123[deg]29'59'' W)
Port Angeles CGAS
    (Lat. 48[deg]08'29'' N, long. 123[deg]24'50'' W)

    That airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of the William R.
Fairchild International Airport from the 235[deg] bearing clockwise
to the 120[deg] bearing excluding the airspace within 1.5 miles of
the Port Angeles CGAS.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM WA E4 Port Angeles, WA [New]

William R. Fairchild International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]07'13'' N, long. 123[deg]29'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles
both sides of the 284[deg] bearing extending from the 4.1 mile
radius to 8 miles west of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Port Angeles, WA [Amended]

William R. Fairchild International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 48[deg]07'13'' N, long. 123[deg]29'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.1-mile radius of the William R. Fairchild International
Airport, and within 1 mile north and 4 miles south of the William R.
Fairchild International Airport 105[deg] bearing extending from the
4.1-mile radius to 7 miles east of the airport and that airspace 3.1
miles each side of the 284[deg] bearing from the 4.1-mile radius to
11 miles west of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 11, 2020.
Stephanie C. Harris,
Group Manager (Acting), Operations Support Group, Western Service
Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-03074 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1658-1660]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021]

Grantee Quarterly Progress Report; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified for its Grantee Quarterly
Progress Report.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-
2010-0021). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. To obtain a copy of the ICR, you may
contact Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly A. Mason, OSHA Directorate of
Training and Education, 2020 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington
Heights, IL 60005-4102; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 21 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes OSHA to
conduct directly, or through grants and contracts, education and
training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of
qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the OSH Act, provide
them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper
use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees
to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working
conditions.
    Under Section 21, OSHA awards training grants to nonprofit
organizations to provide part of the required training. The Agency
requires organizations that receive these grants to submit quarterly
progress reports that provide information on their grant-funded
training activities; these reports allow OSHA to monitor the grantee's
performance and to determine if an organization is using grant funds as
specified in its grant application. Accordingly, the Agency compares
the information provided in the quarterly progress report to the
quarterly milestones proposed by the organization in the work plan and
budget that accompanied the grant application. This information
includes: Identifier data (organization name and grant number); the
date and location where the training occurred; the length of training
(hours); the number of employees and employers attending training
sessions provided by the organization during the quarter; a description
of the training provided; a narrative account of grant activities
conducted during the quarter; and an evaluation of progress regarding
planned versus actual work accomplished. This comparison permits OSHA
to determine if the organization is meeting the proposed program goals
and objectives, and spending funds in the manner described in the
proposed budget.
    Requiring these reports on a quarterly basis enables OSHA to
identify work plan, training, and expenditure discrepancies in a timely
fashion so that it can implement appropriate action. In addition, this
information permits the Agency to assess an organization's ability to
meet projected milestones and expenditures.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements specified for the Grantee Quarterly Progress
Report. OSHA is proposing to increase the burden hours in its currently
approved information collection request from 4,944 burden hours to
5,096 burden hours (a total increase of 152 hours). Although the annual
number of grants managed by the Agency decreased from a three-year
average of 103 to 91, the estimated number of hours required to
complete the report increased by 2 hours per quarter. The number of
hours required to complete the report was increased in order to
collect, compile, and maintain evaluation information for the narrative
portion of the report. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted
in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request
to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Grantee Quarterly Progress Report.
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0100.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit
institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 91.
    Frequency of Responses: Quarterly.
    Average Time per Response: 14 hours per quarter.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,096.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(72 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 3, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-00121 Filed 1-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67731-67735]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24413]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96225; File No. SR-BOX-2022-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Allow
Electronic Multi-Leg Orders on BOX

November 3, 2022.
    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 26, 2022, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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 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 BOX Rule 7240 (Complex Orders) to
permit electronic Multi-Leg Orders on BOX. 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 https://rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings.

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
    Currently, only Multi-Leg Orders defined as ``Complex Orders''
trade electronically on BOX.\5\ The Exchange now proposes to allow
Multi-Leg Orders that are not Complex Orders to trade electronically on
BOX. As such, the Exchange proposes BOX Rule 7240(a)(10) which states
that the term ``Multi-Leg Order'' means any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, for the same account, and for
the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy, in a ratio
that is less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one
(3.00). The Exchange notes that similar functionality is currently
available at another options exchange and on the BOX Trading Floor.\6\
Multi-Leg Orders involve the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two
or more different options series in the same underlying security, for
the same account, and for the purpose of executing a particular
investment strategy.\7\ In particular, Multi-Leg Orders are
distinguished from Complex Orders by the ratio between each leg of the
orders. Complex Orders have a ratio between the legs of equal to or
greater than one-to-three and less than or equal to three-to-one.
Multi-Leg Orders consist of strategies with ratios greater than three-
to-one or less than one-to-three. Participants may determine that using
Multi-Leg Orders is appropriate for their investment and hedging
purposes. The Exchange again notes that multi-leg Qualified Open Outcry
(``QOO'') Orders may currently be executed on the BOX Trading Floor.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Multi-Leg Orders and Complex Orders are distinguished by the
ratio between each leg of the orders. Complex Orders have a ratio
between the legs of equal to or greater than one to three and less
than or equal to three to one. Multi-Leg Orders for these purposes
consist of all other ratios between the legs.
    \6\ See Chicago Board of Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Rule
1.1 (stating in the definition of Complex Order that ``the exchange
determines on a class-by-class basis whether complex orders with
ratios less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than three-to-one
(3.00) (except for Index Combo orders) are eligible for electronic
processing''). The Exchange notes that multi-leg Qualified Open
Outcry (``QOO'') orders are currently traded on the BOX Trading
Floor. See BOX Rule 7600(c).
    \7\ See BOX Rule 7600(c).
    \8\ Each component series of a multi-leg QOO order must be
executed at a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO for
that series subject to the exceptions of Rule 15010(b). Each
component series of a multi-leg QOO order (1) may not trade through
any equal or better priced Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX
Book for that series or any non-Public Customer bids or offers on
the BOX Book for that series that are ranked ahead of or equal to
better priced Public Customer bids or offers, and (2) may not trade
through any non-Public Customer bids or offers for that series on
the BOX Book that are priced better than the proposed execution
price. The initiating side of a multi-leg QOO order must execute
against equal or better priced interest on the BOX Book as provided
by Rules 7600(d) and (h) before executing against the contra-side
QOO order. Id.

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

    The Exchange now proposes BOX Rule 7240(b)(2)(iii) to detail the
trading priority requirements for Multi-Leg Orders. Proposed BOX Rule
7240(b)(2)(iii) provides that each component leg of a Multi-Leg Order
will be required to trade (A) at or between the NBBO, and (B) at a
price that is at least $0.01 better than any Public Customer order on
the BOX Book.\9\ The Exchange notes that the proposed trading priority
for Multi-Leg Orders is similar to the priority for multi-leg QOO
Orders on the BOX Trading Floor in that the priority rules for both
order types are designed to protect Public Customer interest on the BOX
Book.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed BOX Rule 7240(b)(1) states that the minimum
increment for bids and offers on Multi-Leg Orders, with a ratio
between the legs of less than one-to-three or greater than three-to-
one, is $0.01 and the leg(s) of a Multi-Leg Order may be executed in
one cent increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise
applicable to the individual legs of the order.
    \10\ See BOX Rule 7600(c). The priority rules of multi-leg QOO
Orders and electronic Multi-Leg Orders differ in that a component
leg of a multi-leg QOO Order must trade against any Public Customer
interest and any non-Public Customer interest ranked equal to or
better than the Public Customer interest at the same price as the
contra side of the multi-leg QOO order, whereas each component leg
of an electronic Multi-Leg Order must improve any Public Customer
order on the BOX Book or the order will be rejected. The proposed
electronic Multi-Leg Order priority is designed to be consistent
with other electronic order types on BOX. See BOX Rule 7110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the execution of a Multi-Leg
Order:
    Example 1--Execution of a Multi-Leg Order
    BOX Leg A Book: 6.00--6.60 (no Public Customer interest)
    BOX Leg B Book: 3.00--3.30 (no Public Customer interest)
    Leg A NBBO: 6.00--6.60
    Leg B NBBO: 3.00--3.30
    Strategy: Buy 4 A Calls, Sell 1 B Call
    The Exchange receives a Multi-Leg Order for the purchase of the
strategy at a net price of 22.80, buying 4 A Calls and selling 1 B
Call. Since the order can be executed at a price that is at or between
the NBBO for each component series, and at a price that is at least
$0.01 better than any Public Customer order on the BOX Book, the legs
of the Multi-Leg Order will be executed at 6.45 for leg A and 3.00 for
leg B to achieve the net price of 22.80 (6.45 times 4 equals 25.80 less
3.00 equals 22.80).
    Example 2--Execution of a Multi-Leg Order
    BOX Leg A Book: 6.00--6.60 (no Public Customer interest)
    BOX Leg B Book: 3.00--3.30 (Public Customer to sell at 3.30)
    Leg A NBBO: 6.00--6.60
    Leg B NBBO: 3.00--3.30
    Strategy: Buy 4 A Calls, Sell 1 B Call
    The Exchange receives a Multi-Leg Order for the purchase of the
strategy at a net price of 20.70, buying 4 A Calls and selling 1 B
Call. Since there is a Public Customer Order on the BOX Book for Leg B
to sell at 3.30 and the Multi-Leg Order can only be purchased at a net
price of 20.70 if leg A is purchased at 6.00 (6.00 times 4 equals
24.00) and leg B is sold at 3.30 (24.00 less 20.70 equals 3.30), the
Multi-Leg Order will be rejected.
    The Exchange proposes further, in proposed Rule 7240(b)(1), that
the minimum increment for bids and offers on electronic Multi-Leg
Orders will be $0.01 and each leg of an electronic Multi-Leg Order may
be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum
increments otherwise applicable to the individual legs of the
order.\11\ The Exchange notes that electronic trading of Multi-Leg
Orders in one cent increments was recently established on another
exchange.\12\ Further, the Exchange notes that Complex Orders are
currently traded electronically in one cent increments on BOX \13\ and
the proposed change will allow electronic trading of Multi-Leg Orders
in one cent increments that merely have a different ratio between the
legs as compared to Complex Orders. The Exchange notes it is not
proposing to extend the Complex Order priority afforded to Complex
Orders to the proposed Multi-Leg Orders.\14\ As discussed above,
proposed Rule 7240(b)(2)(iii) will require that each component leg
execute at or between the NBBO, and at a price that is least $0.01
better than any Public Customer order on the BOX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 7240(b)(1).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (SR-CBOE-2021-046).
    \13\ See BOX Rule 7240(b)(1).
    \14\ See BOX Rule 7240(b)(2). The Exchange also notes that it
will not generate Legging Orders for Multi-Leg Orders. Legging
Orders are only generated on BOX for Complex Orders with two legs
and with a ratio of one-to-one. See BOX Rule 7240(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that there may be some concerns that if
the ratios of multi-legged strategies, where each component leg is
allowed to trade in one cent increments, are too greatly expanded,
market participants will, for example, enter multi-legged strategies
designed primarily to trade orders in a class in pennies that cannot
otherwise execute as simple orders in that class in pennies. The
Exchange believes it is highly unlikely that market participants will
submit non-bona-fide trading strategies with larger ratios just to
trade in penny increments. Adding a single leg to a larger order just
to obtain penny pricing may further reduce execution opportunities for
such an order because it may be less likely that sufficient contracts
in the appropriate ratio would be available and because it is unlikely
that other market participants would be willing to execute against an
order that is not a bona-fide trading strategy. Further, the Exchange
notes that all option series traded on BOX can currently trade in penny
increments in the Price Improvement Period (``PIP'') regardless of the
minimum increment otherwise applicable.\15\ Lastly, the Exchange notes
that pursuant to BOX Rule 3000(a), no Participant shall engage in acts
or practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade
and non-bona-fide trading strategies may constitute acts or practices
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BOX Rules 7150(f)(2) and 7150(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation of Multi-Leg Orders
by Informational Circular at least 48 hours prior to deployment of this
functionality, as the Exchange believes that 48 hours of notice is
adequate for Participants.
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.\16\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ 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)
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and benefit investors because another exchange has established
both electronic and open outcry execution of Multi-Leg Orders,
regardless of ratio.\18\ The Exchange believes that, with the proposed
changes discussed herein, market participants will no longer have to
trade Multi-Leg Orders electronically on the one other exchange that
offers this functionality and could instead select the exchange that is
most convenient, offers the best fees, and/or provides better trade
execution services. Further, the Exchange believes that market
participants may find it more convenient or cost effective to access
one exchange over another and may choose to concentrate their volume at
a particular exchange in order to maximize the impact of volume-based
incentive programs. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and
open market and benefits investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra, note 10. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the
public interest by continuing to protect the priority of Public
Customers as evidenced by the requirements detailed in proposed Rule
7240(b)(2)(iii). In particular, the execution of each leg of a Multi-
Leg Order (i) will be at a price that is at least $0.01 better than any
Public Customer order on the BOX Book; and (ii) will be at or between
the NBBO. The Exchange notes that another exchange has established
multi-leg electronic trading, regardless of the ratios between the
component legs. Therefore, the proposed rules perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and protect investor and the public interest by
increasing efficiency and competitive pricing by establishing Multi-Leg
Orders on BOX which creates intermarket competition between exchanges.
    The Exchange also believes that establishing electronic Multi-Leg
Orders benefits investors and provides a means for market participants
to execute Multi-Leg Orders outside of the BOX Trading Floor, as multi-
leg QOO Orders are currently the only way to execute Multi-Leg Orders
on BOX. Participants may find it more convenient and efficient to
execute Multi-Leg Orders electronically because they do not require
manual handling or the services of a Floor Broker.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that electronic trading of
Multi-Leg Orders in one cent increments will remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and benefit investors,
because it will provide Participants with the same pricing flexibility
with respect to all of their Multi-Leg Orders on BOX (i.e. each
component leg of Complex Orders already trades in one cent increments).
Participants may determine that investment and hedging strategies with
ratios greater than three-to-one or less than one-to-three are
appropriate for their investment purposes, and the Exchange believes it
will benefit Participants if they have additional flexibility to price
their investment and hedging strategies to achieve their desired
investment results. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change with respect to the minimum increment requirement may enable
Participants to execute their customers' Multi-Leg Orders at better
prices, rather than executing at prices that fit within the confines of
a larger increment. The Exchange also believes that allowing the legs
of Multi-Leg Orders to trade in one cent increments will help protect
investors by allowing Participants to receive better execution prices
and improve their ability to execute at or within the NBBO. Further,
the Exchange believes that requiring each leg of a Multi-Leg Order to
execute at a price that is at least $0.01 better than any Public
Customer order on the BOX Book continues to protect Public Customer
interest and thus perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
protects investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes will increase
opportunities for execution of Multi-Leg Orders and lead to tighter
spreads on BOX, which will benefit investors. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to not permit unfair
discrimination among market participants, as all market participants
may trade electronic Multi-Leg Orders, and the priority requirements
apply to electronic Multi-Leg Orders of all market participants.
    Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposed changes discussed
herein are not novel. The trading of multi-leg QOO orders in one cent
increments was recently adopted by BOX.\19\ Further, as noted herein,
another exchange has established both electronic and open outcry
execution of all Multi-Leg Orders, regardless of ratio, and the
execution of these Multi-Leg Orders in one cent increments.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95173 (June 28,
2022), 87 FR 39880 (July 5, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-21).
    \20\ See supra, note 10. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intramarket competition, as the proposed rule change will
apply in the same manner to all Participants. The Exchange notes that
all Participants, regardless of account type, will have the ability to
submit electronic Multi-Leg Orders with any ratio in the increments
permitted by the proposed rule change. Further, the proposed rule
change will provide all Participants with an additional means for
trading Multi-Leg Orders on BOX. The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition
and may, on the contrary, promote competition, as another exchange
currently offers the proposed functionality.\21\ As discussed herein,
trading the legs of Multi-Leg Orders in one cent increments is
currently allowed for multi-leg QOO orders on the BOX Trading Floor.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that the remaining exchanges are free to
adopt similar rules to those proposed here. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. See also CBOE Rules 1.1 and 5.33(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (a)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (b) impose any significant burden on competition; and (c)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\24\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange states
that because multi-leg orders with a ratio less than one-to-three or
greater than three-to-one currently may trade electronically in $0.01
increments on another exchange, waiver of the operative delay will
allow the Exchange to immediately offer market participants the choice
of another execution venue for the electronic trading of Multi-Leg
Orders. The Exchange states that market participants may find it more
convenient and efficient to execute Multi-Leg Orders electronically
because they do not require manual handling or the services of a Floor
Broker. The Exchange further states that the proposal will protect the
priority of Public Customer orders by requiring each component leg of
an electronically traded Multi-Leg Order to trade at a price that is at
least $0.01 better than any Public Customer order on the BOX Book, in
addition to trading at a price that is at or between the NBBO for the
series. In addition, the Exchange states that allowing electronically
traded Multi-Leg Orders to trade in $0.01 increments will provide
market participants with additional flexibility in pricing their
investment and hedging strategies to achieve their desired investment
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The proposal will provide investors with an additional venue for
electronically trading complex orders with a ratio less than one-to-
three or greater than three-to-one. The Commission believes that
proposal does not raise new or novel regulatory issues because another
options exchange currently provides for the electronic trading of
complex orders with a ratio less than one-to-three or greater than
three-to-one.\25\ The proposal protects the priority of resting Public
Customer orders by requiring each component leg of a Multi-Leg Order to
be executed at a price that is at least $0.01 better than any Public
Customer Order on the BOX Book.\26\ This requirement is consistent with
the rules of another options exchange.\27\ In addition, as discussed
above, the Exchange states that it is highly unlikely that a market
participant would submit a complex order with a ratio less than one-to-
three or greater than three-to-one that is not a bona fide trading
strategy solely for the purpose of trading in $0.01 increments. The
Exchange believes that there would be reduced execution opportunities
for such an order because it is unlikely that other market participants
would be willing to trade against an order that is not a bona-fide
trading strategy. In addition, the Exchange states that all option
series may trade in $0.01 increments in the PIP auction.\28\ The
Exchange further states that submitting an order that is not a bona-
fide trading strategy may constitute an act or practice inconsistent
with just and equitable principles of trade, in violation of Exchange
Rule 3000(a). For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94204 (February 9,
2022), 87 FR 8625 (February 15, 2022) (order approving File No. SR-
CBOE-2021-046). See also Cboe Rules 1.1 (stating, in the definition
of complex order, that ``the Exchange determines on a class-by-class
basis whether complex orders with ratios less than one-to-three
(.333) or greater than three-to-one (3.00) (except for Index Combo
orders) are eligible for electronic processing'').
    \26\ See proposed Exchange Rule 7240(b)(2)(iii).
    \27\ See Cboe Rule 5.33(f)(2)(iv)(b) (stating that if a complex
order has a ratio less than one-to-three (.333) or greater than
three-to-one (3.00), the component(s) of the complex order for the
leg(s) with a Priority Customer order at the BBO must execute at a
price that improves the price of that Priority Customer order(s) on
the Simple Book by at least one minimum increment).
    \28\ See BOX Rules 7150(f)(2) and 7150(k).
    \29\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2022-27.

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-2022-27. 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-2022-27, and should be submitted on
or before November 30, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24413 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Total Xylenes Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Total Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method	Total Concentration Result	Total Concentation Units	Total Non-Detect Indicator Total Detection Limit mg/kg	Total Detection Limit Data Qualifier Description

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Ay2	N	xylenes	actual

2.4828	mg/kg

	J     ?	Estimate, DL Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

By1	N	xylenes	actual

2.144	mg/kg

	J     ?	Estimate, DL Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Cy2	N	xylenes	actual

2.445	mg/kg

	J     ?	Estimate, DL Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Dup-00101 (By1)	Y	xylenes	actual

1.089	mg/kg

	J     ?	Estimate, DL Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Dy1	N	xylenes	actual

0.6871	mg/kg

	J     ?	Estimate, DL Unknown

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-4	N	xylenes	actual

1.6	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-5	N	xylenes	actual

1.8	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-6	N	xylenes	actual

1.9	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-7	N	xylenes	actual

1.8	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #1	N	xylenes	actual

0.66	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2	N	xylenes	actual

0.69	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	xylenes	actual

1.9	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #3	N	xylenes	actual

0.65	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #4	N	xylenes	actual

2.1	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #5	N	xylenes	actual

1.2	mg/kg

0.15

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #6	N	xylenes	actual

1	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #1	N	xylenes	actual

4.5	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2	N	xylenes	actual

4.5	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	xylenes	actual

4.1	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #3	N	xylenes	actual

6.2	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #4	N	xylenes	actual

6.3	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #5	N	xylenes	actual

7.3	mg/kg

0.15

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #6	N	xylenes	actual

11	mg/kg

0.15

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-2	N	xylenes	actual

2.1	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-3	N	xylenes	actual

3.3	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-7	N	xylenes	actual

2.3	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-1	N	xylenes	actual

7.1	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-2	N	xylenes	actual

4.1	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-3	N	xylenes	actual

2.2	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-4	N	xylenes	actual

1.9	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-5	N	xylenes	actual

2.9	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-6	N	xylenes	actual

5.1	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-7	N	xylenes	actual

2.4	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-1	N	xylenes	actual

13	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-2	N	xylenes	actual

18	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-3	N	xylenes	actual

8.3	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	xylenes	actual

5.4	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	xylenes	actual

14	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	xylenes	actual

18	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-7	N	xylenes	actual

15	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N	xylenes actual

2.32	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N	xylenes actual

4.43	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N	xylenes actual

1.73	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N	xylenes actual

2.22	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N	xylenes actual

6.58	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N	xylenes actual

3.29	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N	xylenes actual

0.274	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N	xylenes actual

0.372	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-03	N	xylenes actual

0.201	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N	xylenes actual

0.109	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-05	N	xylenes actual

0.218	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N	xylenes actual

1.16	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N	xylenes actual

1.23	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	xylenes	actual

0.951	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-02	N	xylenes	actual

2.88	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-03	N	xylenes	actual

1.76	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-04	N	xylenes	actual

0.596	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-05	N	xylenes	actual

0.565	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	xylenes	actual

33.9	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-02	N	xylenes	actual

42.2	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-03	N	xylenes	actual

24.1	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-04	N	xylenes	actual

28.9	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	xylenes	actual

11.6	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4103788/255-008 - RB-4	N	xylenes	actual

0.62	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU<PHONE_NUMBER>-007 - RB-3	N	xylenes	actual

0.18	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-002 - RB-3-Dup	Y	xylenes	actual

0.086	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-003 - RB-1	N	xylenes	actual

0.63	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4117098/255-004 - RB-2	N	xylenes	actual

0.27	mg/kg

	J	Estimate

n 	68

	MAXIMUM	42.2

	MEAN	5.389998529

	MEDIAN	2.21

	Std. Dev.	8.135269873

	90th Percentile	14.3

	50th Percentile	2.21


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72820]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

November 17, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-881-001.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Baseline refile to be effective 7/25/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101014-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-645-002.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Baseline Compliance to be effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101116-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 29, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-968-002.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits
Substitute First Revised Sheet No 42 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No 1, to be effective 7/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101116-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 29, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29708 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20162-20163]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-51-000.
    Applicants: American Municipal Power, Inc., et al. v. AEP
Appalachian Transmission Company Inc., et al.
    Description: Joint Formal Challenge and Complaint of American
Municipal Power, Inc., et al. v. AEP Appalachian Transmission Company
Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 3/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20230315-5231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2678-004.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement--Approved Effective
Date--Solar Blue (ER21-2678-) to be effective 10/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2679-004.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement--Approved Effective
Date--Grape (ER21-2679-) to be effective 10/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2680-004.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement--Approved Effective
Date--Chestnut (ER21-2680-) to be effective 10/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2681-004.
    Applicants: Westlands Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement--Approved Effective
Date--Cherry (ER21-2681-) to be effective 10/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1041-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: FPL Amendment to Attachment A
Specifications for Amended TSA No. 332 to be effective 1/4/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1512-000.
    Applicants: Westlake Natrium LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Authority to be effective 5/29/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1513-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Termination of High Winds, LLC (TO
SA 40) to be effective 5/30/2023.

    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1514-000.
    Applicants: PECO Energy Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PECO Energy Company submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PECO submits revisions to Formula
Rate, OATT Attachment H-7A to be effective 5/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1515-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 5859; Queue No. AD1-081 to be effective 5/29/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1516-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Clean-Up Filing for
NorthWestern Formula Rate to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1517-000.
    Applicants: IP Oberon II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Tariff to be effective 5/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1518-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-03-30_SA 3006 Duke-
Jordan Creek 4th Rev GIA (J515 J1470) to be effective 3/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1519-000.
    Applicants: Atlas Solar, III, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Atlas Solar III MBR
Application Filing to be effective 3/31/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/30/23.
    Accession Number: 20230330-5211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07106 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P