[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12440-12443]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05027]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0351; FRL-9943-38-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Decommissioning of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
This revision includes regulatory amendments that allow gasoline
dispensing facilities (GDFs) to decommission their Stage II vapor
recovery systems as of January 2, 2015, and a demonstration that such
removal is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. This
revision also includes regulatory amendments that strengthen
Massachusetts' requirements for Stage I vapor recovery systems at GDFs.
The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of
Massachusetts' revised vapor recovery regulations. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2015-0351 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number: (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 5, 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The SIP revision consists of Massachusetts' revised regulations 310
Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00, Air Pollution Control:
Definitions and 310 CMR 7.24, Organic Material Storage and
Distribution. Specifically, in addition to the new and revised
definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, the SIP revision consists of
Massachusetts' revised regulation sections:
     310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel;
     310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks; and
     310 CMR 7.24(6), Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel.

These sections of Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.24 have been revised to
allow the decommissioning of Stage II vapor

recovery systems and to strengthen Stage I vapor recovery requirements.
The SIP submittal also includes a demonstration that removal of Stage
II vapor recovery systems in Massachusetts is consistent with the Clean
Air Act and EPA guidance.
    Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are
two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from
vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II vapor recovery systems are
installed at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) and capture the
refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline pump. The system carries the
vapors back to the underground storage tank at the GDF to prevent the
vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon
canisters installed directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors
evacuated from the gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel
vapors captured in the carbon canisters are then combusted in the
engine when the automobile is in operation.
    Stage II vapor recovery systems and vehicle ORVR systems were
initially both required by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Also, under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures. CAA
section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR for
light-duty vehicles (passenger cars). EPA adopted these requirements in
1994, at which point moderate ozone nonattainment areas were no longer
subject to the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery
requirements. ORVR equipment has been phased in for new passenger
vehicles beginning with model year 1998, and starting with model year
2001 for light-duty trucks and most heavy-duty gasoline powered
vehicles. ORVR equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-
powered light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles
since 2006.
    During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided
volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in ozone nonattainment areas
and certain attainment areas of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR
systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems would eventually become
largely redundant technologies, and provided authority to EPA to allow
states to remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs after
EPA finds that ORVR is in ``widespread use.'' Effective May 16, 2012,
the date the final rule was published in the Federal Register (see 77
FR 28772), EPA determined that ORVR systems are in widespread use
nationwide for control of gasoline emissions during refueling of
vehicles at GDFs. Currently, more than 85 percent of gasoline refueling
nationwide occurs with ORVR-equipped vehicles. Thus, Stage II vapor
recovery programs have become largely redundant control systems and
Stage II vapor recovery systems achieve an ever declining emissions
benefit as more ORVR-equipped vehicles continue to enter the on-road
motor vehicle fleet.\1\ In the May 16, 2012 rulemaking, EPA also
exercised its authority under CAA section 202(a)(6) to waive certain
federal statutory requirements for Stage II vapor recovery systems at
GDFs. This decision exempts all new ozone nonattainment areas
classified serious or above from the requirement to adopt Stage II
vapor recovery programs. Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012 rulemaking also
noted that any state currently implementing Stage II vapor recovery
programs may submit SIP revisions that would allow for the phase-out of
Stage II vapor recovery systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In areas where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor
recovery systems are used, the differences in operational design
characteristics between ORVR and some configurations of these Stage
II vapor recovery systems result in the reduction of overall control
system efficiency compared to what could have been achieved relative
to the individual control efficiencies of either ORVR or Stage II
emissions from the vehicle fuel tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stage I vapor recovery systems are systems that capture vapors
displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline tank truck
deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an aboveground or
underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the
storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank.
The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into
the delivery truck's tank. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank
exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however the Stage I vapor
recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced
vapors being released into the atmosphere.
    Stage I vapor recovery systems have been in place since the 1970s.
EPA has issued the following guidance regarding Stage I systems:
``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations'' (November 1975, EPA Online Publication 450R75102), which is
regarded as the control techniques guideline (CTG) for the control of
VOC emissions from this source category; and the EPA document ``Model
Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control
Technology'' (Staff Working Draft, June 1992) contains a model Stage I
regulation.
    In more recent years, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
required Stage I vapor recovery systems capable of achieving vapor
control efficiencies higher than those achieved by traditional systems.
These systems are commonly referred to as Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR)
systems.

II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revision

    The Massachusetts Stage II vapor recovery program requirements,
codified in 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.24(6),
Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel, were initially approved into the
Massachusetts SIP on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 58993). Massachusetts'
rule required gasoline dispensing facilities throughout the state to
install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
    On May 5, 2015, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision consisting
of its revised 310 CMR 7.24(6), Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel. This
SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that allow GDFs to
decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems as of January 2,
2015 and requires that all GDFs equipped with Stage II vapor recovery
systems, decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems by January
2, 2017.
    A Massachusetts GDF equipped with a Stage II vapor recovery system,
and having an annual throughput of less than 500,000 gallons, may apply
for an extension to decommission its Stage II vapor recovery system
based on financial hardship or extenuating circumstances. Massachusetts
DEP may grant an owner, lessee, operator or controller of a GDF making
such request, an extension of up to two years after January 2, 2017.
Any GDF receiving such an extension, is then required to continue to
operate and maintain its Stage II vapor recovery systems in accordance
with Massachusetts' regulations, until the time when such Stage II
vapor recovery system is ever decommissioned.
    Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision also includes amended
regulation 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel, which
includes requirements for GDFs to upgrade their Stage I vapor recovery
systems to CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems or a Stage I vapor
recovery system composed of EVR system components (Stage I EVR
component systems). As of January 2, 2015, a Stage I EVR system or a
Stage

I EVR component system is required upon facility start-up for
facilities beginning operation. Also as of January 2, 2015, any
component of a pre-existing Stage I vapor recovery system that is
replaced, is required to be replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR
component. The Massachusetts regulations further require that all Stage
I systems be CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems or Stage I EVR
component systems by January 2, 2022 (seven years from the effective
date of these amended regulations). Furthermore, the revised Stage I
regulations require GDFs with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons
or more to maintain Stage I systems that meet the same management
practices required by EPA's National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC.
    In addition, Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision also includes
new and amended definitions in 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control,
that relate to Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery systems and includes
minor clarifying amendments to 310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank
Trucks.
    The May 5, 2015 SIP revision also includes a narrative
demonstration supporting the discontinuation of the Massachusetts Stage
II vapor recovery program. This demonstration consists of an analysis
that the Stage II vapor recovery controls provide only de minimis
emission reductions due to the prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Massachusetts revised 310 CMR 7.00, 7.24(3),
7.24(4), and 7.24(6) regulations, as well as the accompanying SIP
narrative, and has concluded that Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP
revision is consistent with EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772; May
16, 2012) and EPA's ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor
Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing
Comparable Measures'' (EPA-457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter
referred to as EPA's Guidance Document.
    Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision includes a CAA section
184(b)(2) ``comparable measures'' demonstration and a CAA section
110(l) anti-back sliding demonstration based on equations in EPA's
Guidance Document. According to these calculations, the potential loss
of refueling emission reductions from removing Stage II vapor recovery
systems in 2013 is 5.12 percent, thus meeting the 10 percent de minimis
recommendation in EPA's Guidance Document. The fact that the
Massachusetts' demonstration is based on 2013, while the regulation
allows decommissioning of Stage II systems beginning in 2015,
represents a conservative estimate as the potential loss of emission
reductions decreases over time as more and more ORVR systems are
phased-in.
    In addition, Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision also includes
calculations illustrating that the overall emissions effect of removing
the Stage II vapor recovery program would be an increase of about 463
tons of VOC in 2013. EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory database,
Version 2, illustrates that Massachusetts' statewide anthropogenic VOC
emissions were about 147,213 tons (see www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html). Therefore the 463 annual tons of VOC emissions
increase calculated by Massachusetts are only about 0.3 percent of the
total anthropogenic VOC emissions in Massachusetts. Also, as noted
above, these foregone emissions reductions in the near term continue to
diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in continues. Thus, EPA
believes that the resulting temporary increases in VOC emissions will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Furthermore, Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's Guidance Document
illustrates that by the end of 2016 (Massachusetts' requires that all
GDFs decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems by January 2,
2017), about 85% of the vehicles in the national motor vehicle fleet
will be equipped with ORVR. The number of ORVR-equipped vehicles in
Massachusetts will likely be even higher due to Massachusetts having a
more accelerated motor vehicle fleet turnover when compared to the
national motor vehicle fleet.\2\ Appendix Table A-1 of EPA's Guidance
Document also illustrates that by the end of 2016, almost 89% of
gasoline dispensed nationally will be to ORVR-equipped vehicles, which
is also likely to be higher in Massachusetts due to a newer motor
vehicle fleet.\3\ At that point in time, since a vast majority of
Massachusetts vehicles being refueled at gasoline dispensing facilities
will be equipped with ORVR systems, the ORVR systems will be
controlling the VOC emissions, making Stage II vapor recovery systems a
redundant, and potentially incompatible, emissions control technology
in Massachusetts. Therefore, removing the Stage II systems is not
expected to result in a significant emissions increase, but is expected
to avoid emissions increases resulting from the incompatibility of some
Stage II systems with ORVR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Air Program Support for Stage I and Stage II Programs in
Massachusetts Final Report, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and de la
Torre-Klausmeier Consulting, December 12, 2012, includes an analysis
of vehicle registration data, from the Massachusetts motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program database, illustrating that 76%
of motor vehicles inspected in 2011 throughout Massachusetts had
ORVR controls. This is much more accelerated than EPA's end of 2011
calendar year national estimate of 67.1% of vehicles in the national
motor vehicle fleet are equipped with ORVR.
    \3\ Ibid. In 2013, 84.9% of gasoline dispensed in Massachusetts
was dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles. This is slightly more
accelerated than EPA's end of 2013 calendar year national estimate
of 81.0% of fuel dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Stage I vapor recovery requirements, Massachusetts'
revised regulation 310 CMR 7.24(3) is more stringent than the
previously approved version of the rule,\4\ thus meeting the CAA
section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements. As noted above, the
revised rule requires upgrades to a CARB-certified EVR Stage I system
or a Stage I system made up of EVR components by January 2, 2022, with
an earlier January 2, 2015 compliance date in the case of a new
facility or when system components are being replaced. CARB-certified
Stage I EVR systems have been certified to achieve a 98 percent
reduction in VOC emissions, as compared to 95 percent for pre-EVR Stage
I systems. Thus, when pre-EVR Stage I systems in Massachusetts are
replaced with CARB-certified Stage I EVR systems, a greater emission
reduction will be achieved. Also, when a component of a pre-EVR Stage I
systems is replaced with a CARB-certified Stage I EVR component, a
somewhat greater reduction is expected to be achieved. These additional
reductions will further mitigate any temporary declining emissions
increases, which are already de minimis, resulting from removal of
Stage II vapor recovery systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's most recent approval of 310 CMR 7.24(3) was on
September 3, 1999 (see 64 FR 48297).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that the Massachusetts regulation contains the
following language: ``The provisions and requirements of 310 CMR
7.24(3)(a) and (b) are subject to the enforcement provisions specified
in 310 CMR 7.52.'' EPA notes that this language, which also appears in
other parts of the State's regulation with respect to enforcement of
other specific regulatory provisions, and which EPA is proposing to
approve into the Massachusetts SIP, is not

intended to, and does not as a matter of law, preclude enforcement of
the SIP provisions in question through any other means authorized by
federal law, including, but not limited to, the CAA.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP
revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts
revised regulations 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle
Fuel, 310 CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks, and 310 CMR
7.24(6), Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel, as well as new and revised
definitions, in 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control, that relate to
Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery systems, and incorporate these
regulations into the Massachusetts SIP. EPA is proposing to approve
this SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the
CAA and EPA guidance, and it will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and reasonable further progress
or with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.
    Massachusetts' May 5, 2015 SIP revision satisfies the ``comparable
measures'' requirement of CAA section 184(b)(2), because as stated in
EPA's Guidance Document, ``the comparable measures requirement is
satisfied if phasing out a Stage II control program in a particular
area is estimated to have no, or a de minimis, incremental loss of
area-wide emissions control.'' As noted above, Massachusetts' SIP
revision met de minimis criteria outlined in EPA's Guidance Document.
In addition, since the resulting temporary emissions increase from the
removal of Stage II controls are de minimis, the anti-back sliding
requirements of CAA section 110(l) have also been satisfied.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.00, Air Pollution Control:
Definitions; 310 CMR 7.24(3), Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuel; 310
CMR 7.24(4), Motor Vehicle Fuel Tank Trucks; and 310 CMR 7.24(6)
Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally available electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or and Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 19, 2016.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-05027 Filed 3-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45006-45008]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75513; File No. SR-C2-2015-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Exchange Rules Related to Obvious Errors

July 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 15, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to obvious errors.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.15 Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
Including Obvious Errors

* * * * *
    .06 Verifiable Disruptions or Malfunctions of Exchange Systems:
Electronic transactions arising out of a ``verifiable disruption or
malfunction'' in the use or operation of any Exchange automated
quotation, dissemination, execution, or communication system will
either be nullified or adjusted by an Official. Transactions that
qualify for price adjustment will be adjusted to Theoretical Price,
as defined in paragraph (b) above.
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web

site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is seeking to amend its rules related to obvious
errors. Specifically, the Exchange is seeking to add Interpretation and
Policy .06 to provide the Exchange the ability to nullify or adjust
transactions arising out of a verifiable disruption or malfunction of
Exchange systems.
    Similar to Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Rule
6.25.05, the proposed rule would allow an Exchange Official to nullify
or adjust a transaction that arises out of a verifiable disruption or
malfunction in the use or operation of any Exchange automated
quotation, dissemination, execution, or communication system.\3\ For
example, if a malfunctioning exchange system caused orders to be
generated and executed without instructions from a Trading Permit
Holder, the proposed rule would allow the Exchange to nullify the
transactions. Transactions that qualify for price adjustment will be
adjusted to Theoretical Price, as defined in paragraph (b) of Rule
6.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule removes reference to open outcry as C2 is
an all-electronic exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide the
flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed rule so as not
to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to unforeseen
systems problems or malfunctions. The proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange with the same authority that other Exchanges have
to nullify or adjust trades in the event of a ``verifiable disruption
or malfunction'' in the use or operation of its systems.\4\ For this
reason, the Exchange believes that, in the interest of maintaining a
fair and orderly market and for the protection of investors, authority
to nullify or adjust trades in these circumstances, consistent with the
authority on other exchanges, is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 6.25.05, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``Phlx'') Rule
1092(k) and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system and promote a fair and orderly
market because it would provide authority for the Exchange to nullify
or adjust trades that may have resulted from a verifiable systems
disruption or malfunction. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate
to provide the flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed
rule so as not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond
to unforeseen systems problems or malfunctions that may result in harm
to the public. Allowing for the nullification or modification of
transactions that result from verifiable disruptions and/or
malfunctions of Exchanges systems will offer market participants on C2
a level of relief presently not available. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change is based on CBOE rules and is substantially
similar to rules of Phlx, and Arca.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive because it will align
the Exchange's rules with the rules of other markets, including CBOE,
Arca, and Phlx. By adopting the proposed rule, the Exchange will be in
a position to treat transactions that are a result of a verifiable
systems issue or malfunction in a manner similar to other exchanges.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

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-C2-2015-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-018. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-018, and should be
submitted on or before August 18, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18538 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 81)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20945-20948]
[DOCID:fr27ap07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0155; FRL-8305-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Approval of Revision To Rescind Portions of the Ohio
Transportation Conformity Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
January 31, 2007, request from Ohio for a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision of the State transportation conformity regulations. Ohio
held a public hearing on these revisions on September 21, 2006. These
revisions rescind the portion of the state transportation conformity
regulations which are no longer consistent with the Federal
transportation conformity regulations. The rescission of the State
regulations will allow the Federal transportation conformity
regulations to govern transportation conformity determinations in Ohio.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 26, 2007, unless
EPA receives written adverse comments by May 29, 2007. If written
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0155, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-0155. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris, Environmental Scientist,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is Transportation Conformity?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the
purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after
1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the
Clean Air Act for the following transportation related criteria
pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation
conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related
to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised a number of aspects related to section
176(c) of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity provisions. One
of the changes was to streamline the requirements for conformity SIPs.
Prior to SAFETEA-LU being signed into law, states were required to
address all of the Federal conformity rule's provisions in their
conformity SIPs. Most of the sections of the Federal rule were required
to be copied verbatim from the Federal rule into a state's SIP, as
previously required under 40 CFR 51.390(d). States were also required
to tailor all or portions of the following three sections of the
Federal rule to meet their state's individual circumstances: 40 CFR
93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written commitments to control
measures that are not included in a Metropolitan Planning Organizations
transportation plan and transportation improvement program that must be
obtained prior to a conformity determination, and the requirement that
such commitments must be fulfilled; and, 40 CFR 93.125(c) which
addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be
obtained prior to a project level conformity determination, and the
requirement that project sponsors must comply with such commitments.
    Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only
these three sections of the conformity rule in their conformity SIPs.
In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP
revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule. This
provision took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed
into law.

III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?

    The SIP revision submitted to EPA on January 31, 2007, requests to
rescind the sections of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), Chapters
3745-101 Transportation Conformity, which are no longer required. When
the Ohio rules are rescinded, the analagous Federal transportation
conformity regulations will apply instead of the State regulations. The
Federal transportation conformity regulations have been revised to
address court decisions, and to incorporate new regulations to control
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone levels. The Ohio rules that are being
rescinded are no longer valid under the subsequent court decisions and
the SAFETEA-LU legislation. Approval of the rescission as a SIP
revision will bring this regulatory framework into compliance with
Federal law and regulation.
    We have reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the
February 14, 2006, ``Interim Guidance for Implementing the
Transportation Conformity provisions in the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU)''. The policy guidance document can be found at http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm
.

    Ohio is requesting approval of rescission of rules 3745-101-05,
3745-101-06, 3745-101-07, 3745-101-08, 3745-101-09, 3745-101-10, 3745-
101-11, 3745-101-12, 3745-101-13, 3745-101-15, 3745-101-16, 3745-101-
18, 3745-101-19, and 3745-101-20. The rules that are not being
rescinded address the consultation procedures and enforceability of
mitigation controls and measures. These sections are still required by
the SAFETEA-LU legislation because they are specific to each State.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    Based on the reasons set forth above, EPA is approving the State's
request to rescind the following rules from the Ohio SIP: 3745-101-05,
3745-101-06, 3745-101-07, 3745-101-08, 3745-101-09, 3745-101-10, 3745-
101-11, 3745-101-12, 3745-101-13, 3745-101-15, 3745-101-16, 3745-101-
18, 3745-101-19, and 3745-101-20. These rules are part of OAC 3745-101
Transportation Conformity.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 26, 2007
without further notice unless we receive relevant

adverse written comments by May 29, 2007. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective June 26, 2007.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

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

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 26, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter.

    Dated: April 12, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph
(c)(136) and by adding paragraph (c)(137) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (136) [Reserved]
    (137) On January 31, 2007, Ohio requested to rescind certain
transportation conformity rules from the Ohio State Implementation
Plan, which were previously approved in paragraph (c)(122) of this
section. The rules that are being rescinded at Ohio's request are

3745-101-05, 3745-101-06, 3745-101-07, 3745-101-08, 3745-101-09, 3745-
101-10, 3745-101-11, 3745-101-12, 3745-101-13, 3745-101-15, 3745-101-
16, 3745-101-18, 3745-101-19, and 3745-101-20.

 [FR Doc. E7-7895 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64787-64788]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI22-7-000]

Scott Sanicki; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI22-7-000.
    c. Date Filed: May 2, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Scott Sanicki.
    e. Name of Project: Quiet Woods Water Wheel Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located on Pocotopaug
Creek in East Hampton, Middlesex County, Connecticut.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Scott Sanicki; 102 Quiet Woods Road, East
Hampton, CT 06424; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene
is November 21, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's
eFiling at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number DI22-7-000. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Quiet Woods Water Wheel
Project would consist of: (1) an approximately three to six-foot-
diameter under shot poncelet water wheel and approximately two-kilowatt
generator cantilevered to a concrete mount on the creek bank; (2) a
100-foot transmission line to a private residence; and (3) appurtenant
facilities.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must
bear in all

capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', and ``MOTIONS TO
INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular
application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to
Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: October 20, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23291 Filed 10-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P