[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50266-50271]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21557]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0503; FRL-9984-95-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Minor New Source Review Permitting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. This revision pertains to changes to West Virginia's minor
New Source Review (NSR) permit program. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0503. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 18, 2018 (83 FR 28179), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of revisions to West Virginia's minor NSR
regulations, ``45CSR13--Permits for Construction, Modification,
Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants,
Notification Requirements, Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits,
General Permits, Permissions to Commence Construction, and Procedures
for Evaluation,'' as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The formal
SIP revision was submitted by the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West
Virginia on June 6, 2017.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires SIPs to include a
preconstruction permit program for both major and minor sources. More
specifically, SIPs must include the permit programs required under
subpart C of title I and must have minor preconstruction programs that
assure that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are
maintained. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163 outline the
federal requirements which apply to minor permit issuance, including
the required administrative and federally enforceable procedures, and
the procedures for public participation. Under the minor source
permitting rules under the Code of State Rules (CSR) at 45CSR13, West
Virginia implements minor preconstruction program requirements by
issuing permits to: (1) Construct and operate new stationary sources
which are not major sources, (2) modify non-major stationary sources,
(3) make non-major modifications to existing major stationary sources,
and (4) relocate non-major stationary sources. These rules also
establish requirements for obtaining a temporary permit and Class I and
Class II general permit registration. EPA last approved a revision to
45CSR13 on July 21, 2014. See 79 FR 42211.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal contains a number of revisions
to 45CRSR13, many of them administrative or clarifying in nature. The
non-administrative changes include: (1)

Revisions to the definitions of modification and stationary source; (2)
Revisions to and clarifications of the provisions allowing applicants
to store equipment onsite prior to receiving a permit; and (3)
Revisions to the applicability criteria for Class I and Class II
administrative updates.

B. EPA Analysis

1. ``Modification'' and ``Stationary Source'' Definition Changes
    WVDEP added language excluding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under
the definitions of ``Modification'' and ``Stationary Source'' at
45CSR13 sections 45-13-2.17.a and 45-13-2.24.b, respectively. The
specific language added to both definitions is as follows, `` . . .
other than emissions of any one or the aggregate of all GHGs, the air
pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six
greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.'' The
addition of this language to both definitions clarifies that GHG
emissions are not subject to the minor NSR permitting requirements of
45CSR13. In accordance with West Virginia's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations at 45CSR14, preconstruction permitting
requirements for GHG sources are only triggered for major sources or
major modifications, and only when such source/modification is already
``major'' for another pollutant (i.e., a source cannot be ``major'' for
GHGs alone). This is consistent with the federal PSD regulations at 40
CFR 51.166 and 52.21. Additionally, these revisions are appropriate and
meet the federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161, and CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C). Further, GHGs are not a criteria pollutant, and
there are no GHG nonattainment areas. Therefore, the revisions are in
accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
2. ``Store-on-Site'' Clarifications
    WVDEP's previously approved regulations allow sources to
``(r)eceive or store on-site or off-site any equipment or supplies
which make up in part or in whole an emission unit or any support
equipment, facilities, building or structure,'' prior to receiving a
permit under 45CSR13.\1\ See 45CSR13 section 45-13-5.1.i. WVDEP's June
6, 2017 submittal included a revision to 45-13-5.1.i which clarifies
permissible on-site activities that do not constitute commencement of
construction and clarifies that such supplies etc. may be stored on-
site `` . . . on its permanent pad or foundation or at any other
location at the stationary source.'' In addition, section 45-13-2 has
been revised to add a definition of ``store on-site'' which clarifies
that any equipment stored on-site must be kept in the same condition as
it was received, and not ``. . . modified, erected or installed.'' See
45CSR13 subsection 45-13-2.26. As discussed in the NPRM in more detail,
there are no corresponding federal minor NSR regulations for the
definition of ``commencement of construction,'' ``begin actual
construction,'' or corresponding federal minor NSR regulations laying
out what on-site activities are allowable in the absence of a permit.
Because the revisions do not allow for the construction or operation of
an actual emissions unit prior to issuance of a permit, there are no
increased emissions associated with any of the activities allowed by
WVDEP's ``store onsite'' provisions. Further, because a permit is
required prior to erecting and operating any emissions units being
stored on site, West Virginia's program has legally enforceable
procedures to prevent construction of a minor source or the minor
modification of a existing source if it would violate SIP control
strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(b). Therefore, EPA finds these revisions
approvable because they meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) for a program for regulation of modification and
construction of stationary sources in areas to assure the national
ambient air quality standards are achieved and are consistent with 40
CFR 51.160-51.163 for review of new minor sources and minor
modifications including required procedures and public availability of
information. In addition, the revisions to 45 CSR13 are essentially
adding conditions to an already SIP approved regulation for what on-
site activities may occur before commencement of construction.
Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ WVDEP's ``store on-site'' provisions do not apply to major
PSD or nonattainment NSR permits issued in accordance with 45CSR14
or 45CSR19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Class I and Class II Administrative Updates
    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal also revised the applicability
criteria for sources seeking Class I and Class II administrative
updates to minor NSR permits issued under 45CSR13.
    The primary difference between Class I and II updates is that,
pursuant to 45-13-4.1.d, public notice is not required for Class I
updates. For Class II updates, WVDEP provides a 30-day public notice
period, in accordance with 45-13-8.3. Additionally, sources requesting
Class I amendments may make the change upon submitting the request,
prior to receiving a revised permit from WVDEP. In WVDEP's currently
approved SIP, only changes to permit conditions which result in a
decrease in emissions can be approved under a Class I update. Class II
updates must be used for changes which result in an increase or no
change in emissions. See 45CSR13 sections 45-13-4.2.a.8 and 45-13-
4.2.b. WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal revised those provisions so that
rather than applying only to permit revisions which result in an
emissions decrease, a Class I update can be used for a permit revision
resulting in no emissions increase. A Class II update now must be used
in instances where the revision would result in an emissions increase.
EPA believes this is a reasonable approach to streamlining WVDEP's
administrative burden, and is approving them as a revision to the West
Virginia SIP because they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.163
and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for permit programs regulating
modification and construction of sources not subject to major new
source review. Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section
110(l) because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable CAA requirement as all modifications resulting in an
emissions increase are still subject to public notice and the change
only affects notice on actions where there is no effect on emissions
(and thus no affect likely on attainment or reasonable further
progress).
4. Non-Substantive Changes
    In addition to the revisions previously discussed, WVDEP's June 6,
2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying and/or
administrative changes. Some examples include the deletion of 45CSR13
section 45-13-1.5, which referenced the former version of 45CSR13, re-
codifications required by insertions or deletions, (e.g., 45CSR13
sections 45-13-2.26 through

45-13-28), and the deletion of 45CSR13 section 45-13-5.8, which was an
antiquated reference to operating permits (permits issued under 45CSR13
include authorization to construct and operate). WVDEP's submittal
included an underline/strikeout version of the submittal so that all
revisions to 45CSR13 can been seen. This is included in the docket for
this action and online at www.regulations.gov.
    These changes to 45CSR13 have been made in order to clarify and
streamline the minor NSR program, and are appropriate and meet the
federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, the revisions are in accordance with
section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

    EPA received two sets of comments on the June 18, 2018 NPR. These
comments are included in the docket for this action. However, one of
the sets of comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised
in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed
approval of WVDEP's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not addressing them
here. EPA did receive one set of relevant comments. Those comments, and
EPA's response, are discussed below.
    Comment 1: The commenter takes issue with the revision to 45-13-
5.1.i, specifically the addition of the language relating to
``permanent pad(s)'' or ``foundation(s)'' to the existing provision
that allows sources to store materials onsite prior to receiving a
preconstruction permit from WVDEP. The commenter asserts that the
addition of the reference to pads and foundations imparts implicit
approval for the construction of such facilities in the absence of a
permit, and therefore conflicts with the definition of ``begin actual
construction'' at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xv) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(11),\2\
and also conflicts with 40 CFR 51.160 (which requires SIPs to preclude
the construction or modification of sources which would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS). In support of this assertion,
the commenter submitted a letter from EPA Region IX, commenting on
regulations that were submitted to the Region by Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) as an official SIP revision request.\3\ In
this letter, EPA identified MCAQD's definition of ``begin actual
construction'' relating to minor NSR as deficient because it `` . . .
allow[ed] various activities, such as the installation of underground
pipework, and building and equipment supports . . . '' contrary to the
federal requirements and long standing agency policy regarding major
NSR.\4\ Commenter cited the EPA letter as stating such construction of
building and equipment supports is not allowed without first obtaining
a preconstruction permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under both sets of regulations, and under 40 CFR 51.166,
sources subject to those regulations may not ``begin actual
construction'' without first obtaining the proper major source
preconstruction permit.
    \3\ The Region IX letter is included in the docket as an
attachment to the comment letter.
    \4\ See Region IX comment letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA Response 1: In contrast to the considerable requirements
prescribed for major NSR in 40 CFR 51.165, the CAA contains minimal
requirements for minor NSR. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) simply requires
that each SIP include a program that provides for `` . . . regulation
of the modification and construction of any stationary source within
the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are
achieved . . . '' The implementing regulations for minor NSR at 40 CFR
51.160-51.163 are similarly non-prescriptive. As a result, states have
considerable discretion with regard to the implementation of their
minor NSR programs as long as the program assures the national ambient
air quality standards are attained. Therefore, as discussed in more
detail below, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a
disapproval is warranted.
    First, EPA does not interpret the inclusion of the reference to
``permanent pad(s) or foundation(s)'' in WVDEP's revised definition of
``store onsite'' relating to allowable activities that occur before the
commencement of construction to impart any permission for construction
activities to occur prior to permit issuance that did not already exist
in WVDEP's regulations. Indeed, section 45-13-5.1.d allows sources to
``Dig and construct foundations and/or caissons and grade beams.''
While such activities would conflict with the federal definition of
``begin actual construction'' as it relates to major NSR, EPA believes
it is within West Virginia's discretion to allow such activities in the
context of a minor NSR program as no definition of ``begin actual
construction'' constrains minor NSR programs in CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) or in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. WVDEP's regulations are very
clear that these permissions do not extend to major sources or major
modifications which are subject to WVDEP's major nonattainment PSD and
NSR regulations at 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, respectively (subsection 5.1).
Further, they do not allow for the installation, erection, or operation
of the emissions unit (subsection 5.2), and are undertaken at the sole
risk of the operator (subsection 5.3). Any source operator who wishes
to store equipment on a pad or foundation must still obtain a permit
before erecting an emissions unit or any of the specialized
appurtenances associated with the unit. Additionally, if a source
operator undertakes any of the activities allowed under these minor NSR
rules, and the construction or modification ends up having a potential
to emit greater than major source thresholds, they are subject to major
NSR liability. Any source that intends to take synthetic minor
restrictions to avoid major source permitting requirements remains
subject to 45CSR14 or 45CSR19 until such time as a permit with
enforceable limits is issued, and is therefore not eligible for the
flexibilities provided by subsections 45-13-5 and 45-13-16.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Subsection 45-13-16.2.b expressly excludes sources seeking
synthetic minor limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that granting the permission to store equipment on a
foundation or pad prior to permit issuance of a minor NSR permit is
within West Virginia's discretion and does not compromise WVDEP's
ability to implement their minor NSR program in such a way to assure
compliance with the NAAQS in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2) and
40 CFR 51.160. With regard to Region IX's letter to MCAQD, the comment
does not undertake any analysis of the similarities or differences
between MCAQD's SIP submittal and West Virginia's proposed regulatory
revisions, nor compared to WVDEP's program. Therefore, any similarities
or differences between MCAQD's regulations and WVDEP's program are not
relevant to the main issue in this rulemaking which is whether WVDEP's
regulations may be approved for the SIP as being consistent with CAA
requirements. EPA has explained in the NPR and in this rulemaking why
WVDEP's revisions meet CAA requirements in both CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) and in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. Notably, there is no federal
regulatory requirement of ``begin actual construction'' for minor NSR
in CAA or in 40 CFR 51.161-51.163. Further, EPA notes that in an August
17,

2017 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve for the
South Carolina SIP minor NSR program similar provisions to West
Virginia's relating to permissible on-site activities allowable pre-
permit. In that rulemaking proposal, EPA found that provisions allowing
sources to pour concrete foundations prior to issuance of a minor NSR
permit were `` . . . not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations, and are therefore approvable as part of the
SIP.'' See 82 FR 39085. EPA made similar determinations in final
rulemaking actions for Mississippi \6\ and Wisconsin \7\. Thus, despite
the EPA comment letter cited by commenter, EPA disagrees with commenter
that EPA's action to approve the West Virginia revision contradicts EPA
regulations or policy. Accordingly, EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6,
2018 submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 71 FR 38773 (July 10, 2006).
    \7\ See 73 FR 12893 (March 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that ``To allow a whole or even
part of an emission unit to be stored on site before issuance of a
permit to construct violates the intent of new source review permitting
requirements,'' and that because West Virginia `` . . . has resubmitted
Rule 45-13-5.1.i for approval into the SIP, the entire subsection is
subject to review for approvability,'' and EPA should disapprove the
entire subsection. Commenter also states that EPA is incorrect in
finding the SIP revision will not interfere with any other applicable
CAA requirement per CAA section 110(l) because the West Virginia
revision is inconsistent with CAA and longstanding EPA policy.
    EPA Response 2: EPA does not disagree with the commenter's
assertion that the entire subsection of 45 CSR13 is subject to review
for approvability. However, other than the language on revise ``on-
site'' activities, commenter does not site to other inconsistencies in
West Virginia's regulations. As stated above in response to the first
comment, EPA disagrees that West Virginia's ``store onsite'' provisions
violate the intent of NSR. The PSD provisions of the CAA prohibit
commencement of construction without first obtaining the required
permit authorizing construction; however, the requirement only applies
to major sources, and no such restriction is specified under the minor
NSR program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.160. In addition, EPA
has made determinations which further support that limited construction
may begin before a permit is issued for minor sources. For example,
EPA's October 10, 1978, memorandum from Edward E. Reich to Thomas W.
Devine in Region 1 discusses limited preconstruction activities allowed
at a site with both PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo states that
construction may begin on PSD-exempt projects before the permit is
issued. EPA has established its position that such limited waivers are
acceptable for true minor sources in previous rulemaking. (See 68 FR
2217 and 73 FR 12893.) In addition, in a December 18, 1978 memo
entitled ``Interpretation of `Constructed' as it Applies to Activities
Undertaken Prior to Issuance of a PSD Permit,'' \8\ EPA attempted to
clarify activities which would, in all cases, require a source operator
to obtain a major NSR permit before undertaking, as well as activities
which in all cases would not: ``The new policy is that certain limited
activities will be allowed in all cases. These allowable activities are
planning, ordering of equipment and materials, site-clearing, grading,
and on-site storage of equipment and materials (emphasis added).''
Clearly, if such activities are acceptable prior to issuance in the
context of the considerably more prescriptive major NSR program, West
Virginia is well within its discretion to allow similar on-site
activities under its minor NSR program for which the CAA and federal
regulations provide less regulatory requirements. Accordingly, EPA is
approving WVDEP's June 6, 2018 submittal as a revision to the West
Virginia SIP as nothing in the minor NSR requirements in the CAA or in
40 CFR part 51 prohibit West Virginia from allowing certain on-site
activities such as those West Virginia has added prior to issuance of a
construction permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The commenter cites this memo as well as three others in
defense of their claims. See fn5 of comment letter. None of these
memos speak directly to the issue of activities allowed pre-permit
in the context of minor NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's general assertion that
EPA is incorrect in finding the SIP revision will not interfere with
any other applicable CAA requirement per CAA section 110(l). As EPA has
explained in response to first and second comment, there are no federal
requirements in the CAA or federal regulations that address allowable
on-site activities prior to issuance of a permit. As EPA has found West
Virginia's regulations reasonable and within the scope of CAA
requirements for minor NSR programs, EPA is approving the revisions as
in accord with CAA section 110. Our approval is consistent with similar
SIP revision approvals for South Carolina and Mississippi as discussed
above.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal as a revision
to the West Virginia SIP because the revisions meet the requirements of
40 CFR 51.160-51.163 and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, they
are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they will not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the WVDEP
rules regarding minor source permitting requirements discussed in
section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified
in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for
more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action related to West Virginia's minor NSR program may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA-Approved
Regulations in the West Virginia SIP'' is amended by revising the
entries for sections 45-13-1 through 45-1-16, 45-13A, and 45-13B to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
 State citation [chapter 16-20       Title/subject           State      EPA approval date  explanation/ citation
          or 45 CSR ]                                   effective date                       at 40 CFR 52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[45 CSR] Series 13 Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air
Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits, General Permits, Permission to
                               Commence Construction and Procedures for Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 45-13-1...............  General...............          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                                                         Federal Register   changes.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-2...............  Definitions...........          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Revised definitions
                                                                         Federal Register   of ``modification,''
                                                                         citation].         ``stationary
                                                                                source,'' and
                                                                                ``store on-site.''
Section 45-13-3...............  Reporting Requirements          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                 for Stationary                          Federal Register   date.
                                 Sources.                                citation].
Section 45-13-4...............  Administrative Updates          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Revised sections
                                 to Existing Permits                     Federal Register   4.1.d, 4.2, 4.2.a.8,
                                 and General Permit                      citation].         and 4.2.b.1.
                                 Registrations.

Section 45-13-5...............  Permit Application and          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Revised section
                                 Reporting                               Federal Register   5.1.e, 5.1.i;
                                 Requirements for                        citation].         deleted existing
                                 Construction of and                                        section 5.8;
                                 Modifications to                                           renumbered following
                                 Stationary Sources.                                        sections.
Section 45-13-6...............  Determination of                6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                 Compliance of                           Federal Register   date.
                                 Stationary Sources.                     citation].
Section 45-13-7...............  Modeling..............          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                                                         Federal Register   date.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-8...............  Public Review                   6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Revised section 8.1.
                                 Procedures.                             Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-9...............  Public Meetings.......          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                                                         Federal Register   date
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-10..............  Permit Transfer,                6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                 Suspension,                             Federal Register   changes.
                                 Revocation and                          citation].
                                 Responsibility.
Section 45-13-11..............  Temporary Construction          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                 or Modification                         Federal Register   changes.
                                 Permits.                                citation].
Section 45-13-12..............  Permit Application              6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                 Fees.                                   Federal Register   date.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-13..............  Inconsistency Between           6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                 Rules.                                  Federal Register   changes.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-14..............  Statutory Air                   6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                 Pollution.                              Federal Register   date.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-15..............  Hazardous Air                   6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                 Pollutants.                             Federal Register   changes.
                                                                         citation].
Section 45-13-16..............  Application for                 6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                 Permission to                           Federal Register   changes.
                                 Commence Construction                   citation].
                                 in Advance of Permit
                                 Issuance.
Table 45-13A..................  Potential Emission              6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    New state effective
                                 Rate.                                   Federal Register   date.
                                                                         citation].
Table 45-13B..................  De Minimus Sources....          6/1/17  10/5/18 [Insert    Administrative
                                                                         Federal Register   changes.
                                                                         citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21557 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 277]
[DOCID:fr05ja09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2082-027; Oregon and California]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Public Meetings Concerning the Relicensing
of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project

December 24, 2008.
    On February 25, 2004, PacifiCorp filed an application to relicense
its 169-MW Klamath Hydroelectric Project. In November 2007, Commission
staff issued its final Environmental Impact Statement, in which it
analyzed a number of alternatives for relicensing the project. To date,
neither the states of Oregon nor California have acted on PacifiCorp's
requests for certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act,
precluding Commission action on the license application.
    On November 24, 2008, PacifiCorp filed an Agreement in Principle,
executed among PacifiCorp; the U.S. Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, and the Interior; and the States of California and Oregon,
for the continued operation and potential future removal of Klamath
Project dams.
    The Agreement in Principle is complex and may have a significant
effect on the analysis of PacifiCorp's relicense application. The
compatibility of the Agreement with the licensing process and the
appropriate procedures for the continued processing of the application
will be discussed. Commission staff will hold two public meetings to
obtain public comment on these matters. The meetings will be held as
follows.
    Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. and 7 p.m. (PST).
    Place: Best Western Miner's Inn.
    Address: 122 East Miner Street, Yreka, California.
    For further information, please contact John Mudre at e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-31308 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37931-37932]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-192-000.
    Applicants: SR Snipesville, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of SR Snipesville, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1437-011.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of Tampa Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1833-001.
    Applicants: GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Change in Proposed Effective Date of
Reactive Service Rate Schedule Revision to be effective 8/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2082-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA SA No.
3175; Queue No. AB2-001 RE: GSRP II (consent) to be effective 11/15/
2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2083-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA No. 3203,
W3-079, RE: GSRP I to GSRP II (consent) to be effective 4/7/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2084-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPAs SA No.
3257, Queue No. W4-057 RE: GSRP to GSRP II (consent) to be effective
10/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2085-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPAs No. 3276,
Queue No. X1-012 RE: GSRP I to GSRP II (consent) to be effective 1/24/
2017.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2086-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, SA No.
3503; Queue No. X4-031 RE: GSRP I to GSRP II (consent) to be effective
8/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2087-000.
    Applicants: Gichi Noodin Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Gichi Noodin Wind Farm LLC
MBR Application Filing to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200617-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2088-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended LGIA Daggett Solar
Power 3 LLC SA No. 225 to be effective 6/19/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2089-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-06-18_SPS-GSEC-DSEC-IA-
Sub 26-718-SPS-0.0.0 to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2090-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA (SA2535) re: NYISO,
Consolidated Edison, & NRG Berrians East Development to be effective 6/
4/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2091-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CED Solar Development
(Timberland Solar) Amended and Restated LGIA Filing to be effective 6/
5/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2092-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3672 City of Independence,
MO/Evergy Metro Int Agr to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2093-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3673 OPPD & Evergy Kansas
Central Interconnection Agreement to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2094-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3199R1 Evergy MO West/City
of Liberal MO Interconnection Ag to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2095-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, SA No.
3202; Queue No. W3-077 (amend) to be effective 4/30/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2096-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3218R1 Evergy Metro & Evergy
Missouri West Inter Agr to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2097-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits ECSA No. 5644
to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2098-000.
    Applicants: Titan Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: baseline new to be effective
8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2099-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits ECSA No. 5583
to be effective 8/17/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2100-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DP&L submits Supplemental
Filing to Application filed in ER20-1068-000 to be effective 5/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: June 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13621 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70517-70522]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28594]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68262; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change To Address Authority To
Cancel Orders When a Technical or Systems Issue Occurs and To Describe
the Operation of Routing Service Error Accounts

November 19, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 8, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to (i) address the
authority of the Exchange to cancel orders (or release routing-related
orders) when a technical or systems issue occurs; and (ii) describe the
operation of an Exchange error account(s) and routing broker error
account(s), which may be used to liquidate unmatched executions that
may occur in the provision of the Exchange's routing service. The text
of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), 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 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt new Rule 6.6A
to address the authority of the Exchange to cancel orders (or release
routing-related orders) when a technical or systems issue occurs and to
adopt new Rule 6.14C to describe the operation of an Exchange error
account(s)(``Exchange Error Account(s)'') and routing broker error
account(s), which may be used to liquidate unmatched executions that
may occur in the provision of the Exchange's routing service.
    By way of background, the Exchange operates a ``hybrid'' style
system of trading that allows automatic executions to occur
electronically and open outcry trades to occur on the floor of the
Exchange. As part of this infrastructure, the Exchange also
automatically routes orders to other exchanges under certain
circumstances. These routing services are provided in conjunction with
one or more routing brokers that are not affiliated with the
Exchange.\4\ Mechanically, when the Exchange receives an order from a
Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') that is held in the Exchange system and
determines to route an order to another exchange, the Exchange provides
the routing broker with a corresponding order and instructions to route
the order to another exchange(s). The routing broker then sends the
corresponding order to the other exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Rule 6.14B, Order Routing to Other Exchanges.
    \5\ Generally, the routing brokers route the orders directly to
other exchanges. However, it is possible that a routing broker may
route orders to another exchange through a third-party broker-
dealer. In those cases, the third-party broker-dealer would route
the orders to the other exchange in its name, and any executions
would be submitted for clearance and settlement in the name of the
routing broker so that any resulting positions are delivered to the
routing broker upon settlement. As described above, normally the
routing broker would then coordinate with the Exchange to arrange
for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the TPH
that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange. If error
positions (as defined in proposed Rule 6.14C) result in connection
with the routing broker's use of a third-party broker-dealer for
outbound routing, and those positions are delivered to the routing
broker through the clearance and settlement process, those positions
would be permitted to be resolved in accordance with proposed Rule
6.14C. If the third-party broker-dealer received error positions and
the positions were not delivered to the routing broker through the
clearance and settlement process, then the third-party broker-dealer
would resolve those positions itself, and the positions would not be
permitted to be resolved as set forth in proposed Rule 6.14C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the normal course, the routing broker reports an execution or
cancellation of the routed order back to the Exchange. Routed orders
that are executed at another exchange are submitted for clearance and
settlement in the name of the routing broker. The routing broker then
coordinates with the Exchange to arrange for any resulting securities
positions to be delivered to the TPH that submitted the original order
to the Exchange (i.e., upon receipt of a filled execution report for
the routed order, the Exchange system pairs the execution against the
TPH's original order being held in the Exchange system and reports the
pairing for clearance and settlement purposes by submitting a non-tape,
clearing only transaction).
    From time to time, the Exchange encounters situations in which it
becomes necessary to cancel orders (or release routing-related orders)
and resolve error positions that result from errors of the Exchange,
routing brokers, or another exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be
exclusive. Proposed Rule 6.6A would provide general authority for
the Exchange to cancel orders (or release routing-related orders) in
order to maintain fair and orderly markets when technical or systems
issues are occurring, and proposed Rule 6.14C also would set forth
the manner in which error positions (which may occur in the
provision of the Exchange's routing service) may be handled by the
Exchange. The proposed rule change is not limited to addressing
order cancellation (release) or error positions resulting only from
the specific examples described in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 6.6A (Order Cancellation/Release)

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new CBOE Rule 6.6A to address the
authority of the Exchange to cancel orders when a technical or systems
issue occurs. Specifically, paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would
expressly authorize the Exchange to cancel orders as it deems to be
necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or
systems issue occurs at the Exchange,\7\ the routing broker, or another
exchange to which an Exchange order has been routed. Paragraph (a)
would also provide that a routing broker may only cancel orders being
routed to another exchange based on the Exchange's standing or specific
instructions or as otherwise provided in the Exchange Rules.\8\
Paragraph (a) would also provide that the Exchange shall provide notice
of the cancellation to affected Trading Permit Holders as soon as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To confirm, the authority to cancel orders to maintain fair
and orderly markets under proposed Rule 6.6A would apply to any
technical or systems issue at the Exchange and would include any
orders at the Exchange (i.e., the authority to cancel orders would
apply to any orders that are subject to the Exchange's routing
service and any orders that are not subject to the Exchange's
routing service). By comparison, the routing service error account
provisions under proposed Rule 6.14C (discussed below) would apply
only to original and corresponding orders that are subject to the
Exchange routing service.
    \8\ As discussed above, the Exchange uses non-affiliated routing
brokers to provide the routing services. These routing brokers are
also not facilities of the Exchange. For all routing services, the
Exchange determines the logic that provides when, how and where
orders are routed away to other exchanges. The routing broker
receives the routing instructions from the Exchange to route orders
to other exchanges and to report executions back to the Exchange.
The routing broker cannot change the terms of an order or the
routing instructions, nor does the routing broker have any
discretion about where to route an order. See Rule 6.14B(c), (e) and
(f). Under paragraph (a) to proposed Rule 6.6A, the decision to take
action with respect to orders affected by a technical or systems
issue shall be made by the Exchange. Depending on where those orders
are located, a routing broker would be permitted to initiate a
cancellation of an order(s) pursuant to the Exchange's standing or
specific instructions or as otherwise provided in the Exchange Rules
(e.g., the Exchange's standing instructions might provide, among
other things, that the routing broker could initiate the
cancellation of orders if the routing broker is experiencing
technical or systems issues routing orders to an away exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule provides that the Exchange may
also determine to release orders being held on the Exchange awaiting an
away exchange execution as it deems to be necessary to maintain fair
and orderly markets if a technical or systems issues occurs at the
Exchange, a routing broker, or another exchange to which an order has
been routed (the process for ``releasing'' orders is illustrated in
more detail below). Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule would provide
that, for purposes of Rule 6.6A, technical or system issues would
include, without limitation, instances where the Exchange has not
received confirmation of an execution (or cancellation) on another
exchange from a routing broker within a response time interval
designated by the Exchange, which interval may not be less than three
(3) seconds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A determination by the Exchange to cancel or release orders
may not cause the Exchange to declare self-help against the other
exchange pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 6.81, Order
Protection. If the Exchange determines to cancel or release orders,
as applicable, under proposed Rule 6.6A but does not declare self-
help against that other exchange, the Exchange would continue to be
subject to the trade-through requirements in Rule 6.81 with respect
to that exchange.

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

    The examples set forth below describe some of the circumstances in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which the Exchange may decide to cancel (or release) orders.

    Example 1: If a routing broker or another exchange experiences a
technical or systems issue that results in the Exchange or routing
broker not receiving responses to immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'')
orders sent to the other exchange, and that issue is not resolved in
a timely manner, then the Exchange may seek to cancel the routed
orders affected by the issue.\10\ For instance, if a routing broker
experiences a connectivity issue affecting the manner in which it
sends and receives order messages to or from another exchange, it
may be unable to receive timely execution or cancellation reports
from the other exchange, and Exchange may consequently seek to
cancel the affected routed orders (e.g., by calling the routing
broker and instructing the routing broker to attempt to cancel the
orders) or perhaps the routing broker may initiate the cancellation
of the affected routed orders pursuant to a standing or specific
instruction from the Exchange. In these circumstances, the Exchange
would also attempt to release the initial orders submitted by
TPHs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or
systems issue does not exist), the Exchange should receive an
immediate response back from the routing broker reporting any
executions or cancellations from the other exchange, and would then
pass the resulting fill or cancellation onto the TPH. If, after
submitting an order for which a corresponding order has been routed
to another exchange, a TPH sends an instruction to cancel the
original order, the cancellation is held by the Exchange until a
response is received from the routing broker on the corresponding
order. For instance, if the other exchange executes the
corresponding order, the execution would be passed onto the TPH and
the cancellation instruction on the TPH's original order would be
disregarded.
    \11\ Once an initial order is released, any cancellation that a
TPH submitted to the Exchange on the initial order during such a
situation would be honored. If a TPH did not submit a cancellation
to the Exchange, however, that initial order would remain ``live''
and thus be eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and
the Exchange would not treat any execution of the initial order or
any subsequent routed order related to that initial order as an
error (unless, of course, the order was itself subject to another
technical or systems issue or any away exchange processing exceeded
the applicable response time interval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2: If the Exchange does not receive confirmation of an
execution (or cancellation) of an IOC order sent to another exchange
from a routing broker within a designated response time interval of
three (3) seconds, then an automated system feature will release the
initial order being held by the Exchange.\12\ The Exchange would
also attempt to cancel the routed order in these circumstances.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This routing risk management feature would serve as one
means for the Exchange to efficiently determine if there is a
technical or system issue occurring. The feature, and the system
functionality used to operate the feature, is generally modeled
after a process that was utilized by the Exchange under the former
Options Intermarket Linkage Plan (the ``Old Linkage Plan''). Under
the Old Linkage Plan, an eligible market maker that sent a
``principal acting as agent order'' (referred to as a ``P/A Order'')
through the linkage and who did not receive a reply from the away
exchange within 30 seconds was able to reject any response received
thereafter purporting to report a total or partial execution of that
order. Over time, the time frame in which an away exchange was
required to respond was ultimately reduced to 3 seconds. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023 (August 4, 2000)(order approving Options Intermarket Linkage
Plan submitted by the American Stock Exchange LLC, Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., and International Securities Exchange LLC)
and 57238 (January 30, 2008), 73 FR 6748 (February 5, 2008) (order
approving joint amendment no. 25 to the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage Relating to
Response Time for Certain Orders Sent Through the Linkage). The Old
Linkage Plan was replaced by the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Markets Plan (the ``Distributive Options Linkage
Plan'') in 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60405 (July
30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009)(order approving the National
Market System Plan relating to Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Markets submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, International Securities Exchange, LLC, The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., NYSE
Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.). Although there is no longer a
similar provision for P/A Orders and away exchange response times
under the Distributive Options Linkage Plan, the Exchange still has
system functionality that tracks response times for orders routed to
away exchanges. The primary distinction between the process under
the Old Linkage Plan and the process described in the current
proposed rule change is that, instead of rejecting an execution
report back to the away exchange, an execution report received after
the TPH's order is released would be considered an error and subject
to the Exchange Error Account procedures discussed below. The
Exchange views having this ability to release orders that are queued
waiting for a responsive execution/cancel report for a corresponding
order from an away exchange as an important risk management feature.
Because the markets are highly automated, the Exchange would
normally expect to receive a response to an order routed through the
routing service within milliseconds after it is sent. If a response
is not received in a timely manner, it generally is an indication of
a system problem with the other exchange, the routing broker(s) or
the Exchange. In addition, especially in fast-moving markets like
the options market, the Exchange believes allowing for the release
of a TPH's related original order due to an untimely response will
provide an opportunity for the transmittal of responses while also
allowing the Exchange's TPHs to address and execute orders pending
on the Exchange in a timely manner. The Exchange believes this
contributes to the Exchange's ability to maintain fair and orderly
markets.
    \13\ It is possible that attempts to cancel the routed orders
may not succeed. If the Exchange receives an execution report on the
order that had been routed to an away exchange, then the unmatched
execution would be considered an ``error position'' under proposed
Rule 6.14C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 3: If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the
Exchange may take steps to cancel and/or release all outstanding
orders affected by the issue (which orders may include orders that
may or may not be subject to routing services). The Exchange would
also attempt to cancel any routed orders related to the TPHs'
initial orders, if applicable, in these circumstances.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ It is possible that attempts to cancel the routed orders
may not succeed. If the Exchange receives an execution report on the
order that had been routed to an away exchange, then the unmatched
execution would be considered an ``error position'' under proposed
Rule 6.14C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 6.14C (Routing Service Error Accounts)
    Proposed Rule 6.14C would provide that each routing broker shall
maintain, in the name of the routing broker, one or more accounts for
the purpose of liquidating unmatched trade positions that may occur in
connection with the away exchange routing service provided under Rule
6.14B (``error positions'').\15\ In addition, the Exchange may also
maintain, in the name of the Exchange, one or more Exchange Error
Accounts for the purpose of liquidating error positions in the
circumstances described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that, in connection with providing
routing services, routing brokers currently may utilize their own
error accounts to liquidate error positions. The Exchange believes
it is reasonable and not inappropriate to address routing errors
through the error account of a routing broker because, among other
reasons, it is the executing broker associated with these
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would provide that errors to
which the rule would apply include any action or omission by the
Exchange, a routing broker, or another exchange to which an Exchange
order has been routed, either of which result in an unmatched trade
position due to the execution of an original or corresponding order
that is subject to the away market routing service and for which there
is no corresponding order to pair with the execution (each a ``routing
error''). Such routing errors would include, without limitation,
positions resulting from determinations by the Exchange to cancel or
release an order pursuant to proposed Rule 6.6A (as described above).
    Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule would provide that, generally,
each routing broker will utilize its own error account to liquidate
error positions. However, in certain circumstances, the Exchange may
utilize an Exchange Error Account. In particular, in instances where
the routing broker is unable to utilize its own error account (e.g.,
due to a technical, systems or other issue that prevents the routing
broker from doing so) or where the an error is due to a technical or
systems issue at the Exchange, the Exchange may (but would not be
required to) determine it is appropriate to utilize an Exchange Error

Account. In making such a determination to utilize an Exchange Error
Account, the Exchange would consider whether is has sufficient time,
information and capabilities considering the market circumstances to
determine that an error is due to such circumstances and whether the
Exchange can address the error.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to address
routing errors through the error account of a routing broker in the
manner proposed because, among other reasons, it is the executing
broker associated with these transactions. The Exchange also believes
that having the flexibility to determine to utilize an Exchange Error
Account in the limited circumstances described above allows for
administrative convenience and contributes to the Exchange's ability to
maintain a fair and orderly market.\16\ From a TPH perspective, there
would be no impact resulting from the decision to use an Exchange Error
Account or the routing broker's error account to liquidate the error
position in these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that any profit/loss from liquidating
the error positions would belong to the Exchange (when an Exchange
Error Account is utilized) or the routing broker (when the routing
broker's error account is utilized). However, all or any portion of
such profits/losses may be subject to certain contractual
obligations pursuant to the routing service agreement between the
Exchange and the routing broker (e.g., used to offset certain
contractual obligations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By definition, an error position in an Exchange Error Account would
only include unmatched trades due to a routing error. In that regard,
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule would provide that the Exchange
shall not accept any positions in an Exchange Error Account from an
account of a Trading Permit Holder or permit any Trading Permit Holder
to transfer any positions from the Trading Permit Holder's account to
an Exchange Error Account.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange may address error positions under the proposed
rule that are caused by the errors noted above, but the Exchange may
not accept from a TPH positions that are delivered to the TPH
through the clearance and settlement process, even if those
positions may have been the result of an error. This would not
apply, however, to situations like the one described below in which
the Exchange incurred a position to settle a TPH purchase, as the
TPH did not yet have a position in its account as a result of the
purchase at the time of the Exchange's action, i.e., the Exchange's
action was necessary for the purchase to settle into the TPH's
account. Moreover, to the extent a TPH receives positions in
connection with an error or other technical or systems issue, the
TPH may seek to rely on other Exchange Rules such as Rule 6.7,
Exchange Liability, if it experiences a loss. For example, Rule 6.7
provides TPHs with the ability to file claims for negligent acts or
omissions of Exchange employees or for the failure of its systems or
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent a routing broker utilizes its own account to
liquidate error positions, paragraph (d) of the proposed rule provides
that the routing broker shall liquidate the error positions as soon as
practicable. The routing broker could determine to liquidate the
position itself or have a third party broker-dealer liquidate the
position on the routing broker's behalf. Paragraph (d) also provides
that the routing broker establish and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to (i) adequately restrict the flow confidential
and proprietary information associated with the liquidation of the
error position in accordance with Rule 6.14B,\18\ and (ii) prevent the
use of information associated with other orders subject to the routing
services when making determinations regarding the liquidation of error
positions. In addition, paragraph (d) provides that the routing broker
shall make and keep records associated with the liquidation of such
routing broker error positions and shall maintain such records in
accordance with Rule 17a-4 under the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Rule 6.14B(b) provides that the Exchange shall establish
and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to
adequately restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary
information between the Exchange and the routing broker, and any
other entity, including any affiliate of the routing broker, and, if
the routing broker or any of its affiliates engages in any other
business activities other than providing routing services to the
Exchange, between the segment of the routing broker or affiliate
that provides the other business activities and the segment of the
routing broker that provides the routing services.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (e) of the proposed rule would provide that, to the
extent an Exchange Error Account is utilized to liquidate error
positions, the Exchange shall liquidate the error positions as soon as
practicable. In liquidating error positions in an Exchange Error
Account, the Exchange shall provide complete time and price discretion
for the trading to liquidate error positions in an Exchange Error
Account to a third-party broker-dealer and shall not attempt to
exercise any influence or control over the timing or methods of such
trading.\20\ Such a third-party broker-dealer may include a routing
broker not affiliated with the Exchange. Paragraph (e) would also
provide that the Exchange shall establish and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between the Exchange and the
third-party broker-dealer associated with the liquidation of the error
positions. Finally, paragraph (e) would provide that the Exchange shall
make and keep records to document all determinations to treat positions
as error positions under the rule (whether or not an Exchange Error
Account is utilized to liquidate such error positions), as well as
records associated with the liquidation of Exchange Error Account error
positions through a third-party broker-dealer, and shall maintain such
records in accordance with Rule 17a-1 under the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This provision is not intended to preclude the Exchange
from providing the third-party broker with standing instructions
with respect to the manner in which it should handle all error
account transactions. For example, the Exchange might instruct the
broker to treat all orders as ``not held'' and to attempt to
minimize any market impact on the price of the option being traded.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of such error positions due to a routing error may
include, without limitation, the following:

    Example 4: Error positions may result from routed orders that
the Exchange or a routing broker attempts to cancel but that are
executed before the other exchange receives the cancellation message
or that are executed because the other exchange is unable to process
the cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1
above, assume the Exchange seeks to release the initial orders being
held by the Exchange because it is not receiving timely execution or
cancellation reports from another exchange. In such a situation,
although the Exchange would attempt to direct the routing broker to
cancel the routed corresponding orders, the routing broker may still
receive executions from the other exchange after connectivity is
restored, which would not then be allocated to TPHs because of the
earlier decision to release the affected initial orders. Instead,
the routing broker would post the positions into its account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above. Alternatively,
if the routing broker is unable to resolve the positions (or if the
error position is due to a system or technical issue on the
Exchange), the Exchange may determine to post the positions into an
Exchange Error Account and resolve the positions in the manner
described above.
    Example 5: Error positions may result from an order processing
issue at another exchange. For instance, if another exchange
experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it
may transmit back a message purporting to cancel a routed order, but
then subsequently submit an execution of that same order for
clearance and settlement. In such a situation, the Exchange would
not then allocate the execution to the TPH because of the earlier
cancellation message from the other exchange. Instead, the routing
broker would post the positions into its account and resolve the
positions in the manner described above. Alternatively, if the
routing broker is unable to resolve the positions, the Exchange may
determine to post the positions into an Exchange Error Account and
resolve the positions in the manner described above.
    Example 6: Error positions may result if a routing broker
receives an execution report from another exchange but does not
receive clearing instructions for the execution from the other
exchange. For instance, assume that

a TPH sends the Exchange an order to buy 10 ABC option contracts,
which causes the routing broker to send an order to another exchange
that is subsequently executed, cleared and closed out by that other
exchange, and the execution is ultimately communicated back to the
TPH. On the next trading day (T+1), if the other exchange does not
providing clearing instructions for that execution, the Exchange/
routing broker would still be responsible for settling that TPH's
purchase and therefore would be left with open positions.\22\
Instead, the routing broker would post the positions into its
account and resolve the positions in the manner described above.
Alternatively, if the routing broker is unable to resolve the
positions, the Exchange may determine to post the positions into an
Exchange Error Account and resolve the positions in the manner
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ To the extent that a loss is incurred in covering the
position, the routing broker (on behalf of the Exchange or itself)
may submit a reimbursement claim to that other exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 7: Error positions may result from a technical or
systems issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of a
routing broker in connection with its routing services function that
are not related to any corresponding initial orders of TPHs. As a
result, the Exchange would not be able to assign any positions
resulting from such an issue to TPHs. Instead, the routing broker
would post the positions into its account and resolve the positions
in the manner described above. Alternatively, if the routing broker
is unable to resolve the positions, the Exchange may determine to
post the positions into an Exchange Error Account and resolve the
positions in the manner described above.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ To the extent such positions are not related to the routing
broker's function as an Exchange routing broker (i.e., originating
with the Exchange), the Exchange would not post such positions to an
Exchange Error Account. The routing broker would resolve the error
positions itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In each of the circumstances described above, the Exchange and its
routing broker may not learn about an error position until T+1. For
instance, the Exchange and its routing broker may not learn about an
error position until either (i) during the clearing process when a
routing destination has submitted to The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') a transaction for clearance and settlement for which the
Exchange/routing broker never received an execution confirmation, or
(ii) when another exchange does not recognize a transaction submitted
by a routing broker to OCC for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the
affected TPHs' trade may not be nullified absent express authority
under Exchange Rules.\24\ As such, the Exchange believes that use of a
routing broker error account (or an Exchange Error Account, as
applicable) to liquidate the error positions that may occur in these
circumstances is reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Rule 6.25, Nullification and Adjustment of
Options Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\25\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \26\ in particular, which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is in keeping with
those principles since the Exchange's ability to cancel and release
orders during a technical or systems issue and to maintain an Exchange
Error Account facilitates the smooth and efficient operation of the
market. Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing the Exchange
to cancel and release orders during a technical or systems issue (and
permitting its routing brokers to cancel orders pursuant to standing or
specific instructions or as otherwise permitted under Exchange Rules)
would allow the Exchange to maintain fair and orderly markets.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that allowing a routing broker to
assume error positions in its own account(s) to liquidate those
positions (or allowing the Exchange to assume error positions in an
Exchange Error Account to liquidate those positions in instances where
a routing broker is unable to do so or where the routing error is due
to a technical or systems issue at Exchange) subject to the conditions
set forth in proposed Rule 6.14C would be the least disruptive means to
address these errors. Overall, the proposed new rule is designed to
ensure full trade certainty to market participants and to avoid
disrupting the clearance and settlement process. The proposed new rule
is also designed to provide a consistent methodology for handling error
positions in a manner that does not discriminate among TPHs. The
proposed new rule is also consistent with Section 6 of the Act insofar
as it would require the Exchange (and its routing brokers, as
applicable) to establish controls to restrict the flow of any
confidential information associated with the liquidation of error
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-108. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m., located at 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of
the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-108 and should be submitted on or before
December 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28594 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42664-42665]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-170-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Application Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act to Acquire New Assets of Michigan Electric Transmission
Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5073
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2400-001.
    Applicants: SP Butler Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Application for MBR
Authority and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2403-000.
    Applicants: SP Pawpaw Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR Authority
and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2404-000.
    Applicants: SP Sandhills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR Authority
and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2405-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Sep 2017 Membership Filing
to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2406-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Unexecuted WPAs, City and
County of San Francisco WDT (SA 275) to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2407-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reconciling
Overlapping Amendments to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2408-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CBEC Cost Based Formula
Cancellation to be effective 7/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2409-000.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AECS Updated Schedule 2
(Reactive Power) to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2410-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ODEC Cost Based Formula
Cancellation to be effective 7/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2411-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Salem Cost Based Formula
Cancellation to be effective 7/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2412-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-31 Amendment 2
Particpating Load Agreement with CA Dept Water Resources to be
effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2413-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Connection Agreement for
North Side Substation, et al. of Northern States Power Company, a
Minnesota corporation.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5241.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2414-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-09-01_SA 3042 Crowned
Ridge-OTP GIA (J442) to be effective 8/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2415-000.
    Applicants: Pilesgrove Solar, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Pilesgrove Solar, LLC
Reactive Power Filing to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: September 1, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19146 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13084]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05084]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Aventura Equities, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 5, 2014
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aventura Equities, Inc. (``Aventura'') because of questions concerning
the adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information about
Aventura, including, among other things, its financial condition, the
control of the company, its business operations, and trading in its
securities. Aventura is a Florida corporation based in Georgetown,
South Carolina, and is traded under the symbol ``AVNE.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
March 5, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on March 18, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05084 Filed 3-5-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P