[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39205-39206]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16045]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492; FRL-9694-8]

Public Hearings for Proposed Rules--National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two public hearings for the proposed
rule titled, ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter,'' that is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on
June 29, 2012. The hearings will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and Sacramento, California.
    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to make revisions to the
primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter (PM) to provide requisite protection of public
health and welfare, respectively, and to make corresponding revisions
to the data handling conventions for PM and ambient air monitoring,
reporting, and network design requirements. The EPA is proposing
changes to the Air Quality Index (AQI) to be consistent with the
proposed primary standards. In addition, the EPA is proposing revisions
to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program
with respect to the proposed NAAQS revisions.

DATES: The public hearings will be held on July 17, 2012, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and on July 19, 2012, in Sacramento,
California. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional
information on the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at the following locations:
    1. PHILADELPHIA: William J. Green Federal Building, 600 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. SACRAMENTO: California Air Resources Board, 1001 ``I'' Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on these proposed rules may also be submitted to
EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the proposal for the addresses and detailed
instructions.
    A complete set of documents related to the proposed rule is
available for public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room B102, Washington, DC between 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents are also available
through the electronic docket system at www.regulations.gov.
    The EPA Web site for the rulemakings, which includes the proposal
and information about the public hearings, can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the
public hearings or have questions concerning the public hearings,
please contact Mr. Alan Rush at the address given below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Questions concerning the ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter'' proposed rule should be addressed to Ms. Beth
Hassett-Sipple, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division, (C504-06), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule for which EPA is holding
the public hearings is scheduled to be published in the Federal
Register on June 29, 2012, and is available on the following Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html. The public
hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule. The EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not
respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight

as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public
hearings. Written comments must be postmarked by the last day of the
comment period, August 31, 2012, as specified in the proposed rule.
    The two public hearings will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and Sacramento, California. The public hearings will begin each day at
9 a.m. (local time) and continue into the evening until 9 p.m. (local
time). The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers that
arrive and register before 9 p.m. The EPA is scheduling lunch breaks
from 12:30 until 2 p.m. and dinner breaks from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. If
you would like to present oral testimony at the hearings, please notify
Mr. Alan Rush (6301A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(preferred method for registering),<PHONE_NUMBER>. He will arrange a
general time slot for you to speak. The EPA will make every effort to
follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearings.
    Oral testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes for each
commenter to address either or both proposals. We will not be providing
equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations unless we receive special requests in advance.
Commenters should notify Mr. Rush if they will need specific equipment.
Commenters should also notify Mr. Rush if they need specific
translation services for non-English speaking commenters. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide written versions of their oral
testimonies either electronically on computer disk or CD-ROM or in
paper copy.
    The hearing schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on EPA's Web pages for the proposals at: http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html prior to the hearings. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in
the rulemaking docket.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established the official public docket for the
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter'' under
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. The EPA has also developed a Web
site for the proposed rule at the address given above. Please refer to
the proposed rule, which is scheduled to be published in the Federal
Register on June 29, 2012, for detailed information on accessing
information related to this proposal.

    Dated: June 22, 2012.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-16045 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 80655]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER16-1912-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Out-of-Merit Energy Clarification
Compliance Filing to be effective 8/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-328-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 11-
00052 SPPC-Patua to be effective 11/9/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-329-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-11-09_SA 2871 NSP-North
Star Solar 1st Rev. GIA (J385) to be effective 11/10/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-330-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Interchange
Agreement No. 54 of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-331-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Interchange
Agreement No. 55 of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-332-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Interchange
Agreement No. 56 of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-333-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Interchange
Agreement No. 58 of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-334-000.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Interchange
Agreement No. 109 of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-335-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rev to OATT RE: Release of
Capacity in 17/18 Third Scheduled Incremental Auction to be effective
1/9/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/9/16.
    Accession Number: 20161109-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    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: November 9, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27485 Filed 11-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2124-2127]
[FR Doc No: 2011-458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program
Standards

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
provisions of the Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program
Standards.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by March 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (OMB
Control Number 0910-0621--Extension)

    The Program Standards define nine essential elements of an
effective regulatory program for retail food establishments, establish
basic quality control criteria for each element, and provide a means of
recognition for those State, local, and tribal regulatory programs that
meet the Program Standards. The program elements addressed by the
Program Standards are as follows: (1) Regulatory foundation, (2)
trained regulatory staff, (3) inspection program based on Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles, (4) uniform
inspection program, (5) foodborne illness and food defense preparedness
and response, (6) compliance and enforcement, (7) industry and
community relations, (8) program support and resources, and (9) program
assessment. Each standard includes a list of records needed to document
compliance with the standard (referred to in the Program Standards
document as ``quality records'') and has one or more corresponding
appendices that contain forms and worksheets to facilitate the
collection of information needed to assess the retail food regulatory
program against that standard. The respondents are state, local, and
tribal government Agencies. Regulatory Agencies may use existing,
available records or may choose to develop and use alternate forms and
worksheets that capture the same information.
    In the course of their normal activities, State, local, and tribal
regulatory Agencies already collect and keep on file many of the
records needed as quality records to document compliance with each of
the Program Standards. Although the detail and format in which this
information is collected and recorded may vary by jurisdiction, records
that are kept as a usual and customary part of normal Agency activities
include inspection records, written quality assurance procedures and
records of quality assurance checks, staff training certificates and
other training records, a log or database of food-related illness or
injury complaints, records of investigations resulting from such
complaints, an inventory of inspection equipment, records of outside
audits, and records of outreach efforts (e.g., meeting agendas and
minutes, documentation of food safety education activities). No new
recordkeeping burden is associated with these existing records, which
are already a part of usual and customary program recordkeeping
activities by state, local, and tribal regulatory Agencies, and which
can serve as quality records under the Program Standards.
    State, local, and tribal regulatory Agencies that enroll in the
Program Standards and seek listing in the FDA National Registry are
required to report to FDA on the completion of the following three
management tasks

outlined in the Program Standards: (1) Conducting a program self
assessment, (2) conducting a baseline survey of the regulated industry,
and (3) obtaining an independent outside audit (verification audit).
The results are reported to FDA on Form FDA 3519, ``FDA National
Registry Report'' and Form FDA 3520, ``Permission to Publish in
National Registry.'' These forms are located in Appendix I of the
Program Standards document. If a regulatory Agency follows all the
recordkeeping recommendations in the individual standards and their
appendices, it will have all the information needed to complete the
forms.
    In April 2010, the Conference for Food Protection approved changes
to the Program Standards. The changes have been incorporated into a
draft 2011 revision, which will be available at: http://www.fda.gov/retailfoodprotection. One change was to provide an extension of time
for completion of the three management tasks. Another change was the
inclusion of clarifying language in Standard 9 that a jurisdiction may
use its inspection data to conduct its study of risk factor occurrence.
Although this was always the intent in Standard 9, it was not clear to
jurisdictions that this was a viable option.
    FDA analyzed whether incorporation of these changes alters its
estimate of the recordkeeping and reporting burdens. FDA concluded that
the changes will lessen the annual recordkeeping burden estimate
because the management tasks will be conducted on a less frequent basis
annually. Thus, based on its experience with the Program Standards over
the past 3 years, FDA has reduced its estimate of the hours per record
to 94.29, from the previously estimated 157 hours per record in 2008.
The reduced recordkeeping burden hour estimates are shown in table 4 of
this document. FDA notes that jurisdictions that choose to analyze
their inspection data per the Standard 9 criteria will enjoy a less
resource intensive method for tracking risk factor trends over time.
However, the Agency has not reduced its estimate of 333 hours for
Standard 9 shown in table 2 of this document. The Agency will consider
reducing this estimate in a future information collection request based
on supporting data it expects to receive in the future from
participating jurisdictions. The two noted changes had no effect on the
reporting burden hour estimates shown in table 2 of this document.

Recordkeeping

    FDA's recordkeeping burden estimate includes time required for a
State, local, or tribal Agency to review the instructions in the
Program Standards, compile information from existing sources, and
create any records recommended in the Program Standards that are not
already kept in the normal course of the Agency's usual and customary
activities. Worksheets (Appendices) are provided to assist in this
compilation. In estimating the time needed for the program self-
assessment (Program Standards 1 through 8, shown in table 1 of this
document), FDA considered responses from four state and three local
jurisdictions that participated in an FDA Program Standards Pilot
study. Table 2 of this document shows the estimated recordkeeping
burden for the completion of the baseline data collection and table 3
of this document shows the estimated recordkeeping burden for the
verification audit.

                                            Table 1--Self Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hours per
                  Standard                                   Recordkeeping activity                     record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1--Regulatory Foundation...............  Self Assessment: (Appendix A) Completion of worksheet            16
                                              recording results of evaluations and comparison on
                                              worksheets\1\.
No. 2--Trained Regulatory Staff............  Self Assessment: (Appendix B-2 and B-4) \1\ Completion         19.3
                                              of CFP Field Training Manual and Documentation of
                                              Successful Completion--Field Training Process;
                                              completion of summary worksheet of each employee
                                              training records\2\.
No. 3--HACCP Principles....................  Self Assessment: (Appendix C \1\) Completion of                   4
                                              worksheet documentation.
No. 4--Uniform Inspection Program..........  Self Assessment: (Appendix D \1\) Completion of                  19
                                              worksheet documentation of jurisdiction's quality
                                              assurance procedures\2\.
No. 5--Foodborne Illness Investigation.....  Self Assessment: (Appendix E \1\) Completion of                   5
                                              worksheet documentation.
No. 6--Compliance Enforcement..............  Self Assessment: (Appendix F \1\).....................           19
                                             Selection and review of 20 to 70 establishment files @
                                              25 minutes per file. Estimate is based on a mean
                                              number of 45. Completion of worksheet.
No. 7--Industry & Community Relations......  Self Assessment: (Appendix G\1\) Completion of                    2
                                              worksheet.
No. 8--Program Support and Resources.......  Self Assessment: (Appendix H \1\) Selection and review            8
                                              of establishment files.
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................  ......................................................         92.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Or comparable documentation.
\2\ Estimates will vary depending on number of regulated food establishments and the number of inspectors
  employed by the jurisdiction.

                                        Table 2--Baseline Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hours per
                  Standard                                   Recordkeeping activity                     record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 9 Program Assessment...................  Baseline Data Collection (Appendices I & J) Selection           333
                                              and inspection of randomly selected statistical
                                              sample of 9 to 87 establishments from each of 9
                                              facility types\1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculation based on mean sample size of 39 and average FDA inspection time for each establishment type.
  Estimates will vary depending on number of regulated food establishments within a jurisdiction and the number
  of inspectors employed by the jurisdiction.

                                           Table 3--Verification Audit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hours per
           Standard                                    Recordkeeping activity                           record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 9.........................  Verification Audit (Appendices I & J)\1\...........................        46.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We estimate that no more than 50% of time spent to complete self assessment of all 9 Standards is spent
  completing verification audit worksheets. Time will be considerably less if less than 9 standards require
  verification audits.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 4--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
       FDA worksheets \2\            Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeping      records         record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices A through J..........             500               1             500           94.29          47,145
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          47,145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ Or comparable documentation.

    FDA bases its estimates of the number of recordkeepers and the
hours per record on its experience with the Program Standards over the
past 3 years. FDA estimates that approximately 500 regulatory
jurisdictions will participate in the Program Standards. There are
approximately 3,000 jurisdictions in the United States and its
territories that have retail food regulatory programs. Enrollment in
the Program Standards is voluntary and, therefore, FDA does not expect
all jurisdictions to participate.
    FDA bases its estimate of the hours per record on the recordkeeping
estimates for the management tasks of self assessment, baseline data
collection, and verification audit (tables 1, 2, and 3 of this
document) that enrolled jurisdictions must perform a total of 471.45
hours (92.3 + 333 + 46.15 = 471.45). As noted, based on its experience
with the Program Standards over the past 3 years, FDA has reduced its
estimate of the number of recordkeeping hours that enrolled
jurisdictions will perform annually to 94.29, from the previously
estimated 157 hours per record in 2008. FDA estimates that, annually,
500 recordkeepers will spend 94.29 hours performing the required
recordkeeping for a total of 47,145 hours.

Reporting

    FDA requires regulatory jurisdictions that participate in the
Program Standards to submit two forms annually: Form FDA 3519, ``FDA
National Registry Report,'' and Form FDA 3520, ``Permission to Publish
in National Registry.'' Form FDA 3519 requires the name and address of
the jurisdiction; completion dates for the self assessment, baseline
survey (original and update), and verification audit; names of the
person(s) who completed the self-assessment, verification audit,
baseline survey, baseline survey update, and action plan; signature of
the program manager; and date the form was completed. Form FDA 3520
requires the name of the jurisdiction, completion date of the self
assessment, date of the verification audit report, name of the auditor,
signature and title of the official completing the form, and date the
form was completed.
    The reporting burden in table 5 of this document includes only the
time necessary to fill out and send the forms, as compiling the
underlying information (including self-assessment reports, baseline
surveys, outside audits, and supporting documentation) is accounted for
under the recordkeeping estimates in table 4 of this document.
    FDA estimates the reporting burden for this collection of
information as follows:

                                 Table 5--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
          Form FDA No.               Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents      response        responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3519............................             500               1             500             0.1              50
3520............................             500               1             500             0.1              50
Conference for Food Protection               500               3           1,500             0.1             150
 Training Plan and Log..........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA bases its estimates of the number of respondents and the hours
per response on its experience with the Program Standards over the past
3 years. As explained previously in this document, FDA estimates that
500 regulatory jurisdictions will enroll in the Program Standards. FDA
estimates a total of 12 minutes annually for each enrolled jurisdiction
to complete both forms. FDA bases its estimate on the small number of
data elements on the two forms and the ease of availability of the
information. FDA estimates that, annually, 500 regulatory jurisdictions

will submit one Form FDA 3519 for a total of 500 annual responses. Each
submission is estimated to take 0.1 hour per response for a total of 50
hours. FDA estimates that, annually, 500 regulatory jurisdictions will
submit one Form FDA 3520 for a total of 500 annual responses. Each of
these submissions is estimated to take 0.1 hour per response for a
total of 50 hours. FDA estimates that, annually, 500 regulatory
jurisdictions will submit three requests for documentation of
successful completion of staff training using the CFP Training Plan and
Log for a total of 1,500 annual responses. Each submission is estimated
to take 0.1 hour per response for a total of 150 hours. Thus, the total
reporting burden for this information collection is 250 hours.

    Dated: January 5, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-458 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26937-26938]
[DOCID:fr09my06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-325-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 26, 2006, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 553 proposed to be
effective May 27, 2006.
    Algonquin states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6970 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61727-61729]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21380]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78741; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

August 31, 2016.
    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 August 19, 2016, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make changes to the Non-Standard Booth
Rental Fee in the Facility Fees section of the Fees Schedule. The text
of the proposed rule change is 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 proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes changes to the Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee in the
Facility Fees section of the Fees Schedule. In general, a ``standard
booth'' on the Exchange refers to a portion of designated space on the
trading floor of the Exchange adjacent to particular trading crowds,
which may be occupied by a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH''), clerks,
runners, or other support staff for operational and other business-
related activities. The term ``non-standard booth'' generally refers to
space on the trading floor of the Exchange that is set off from a
trading crowd, which may be rented by a TPH for whatever support,
office, back-office, or any other business-related activities for which
the TPH may choose to use the space.
    Currently, TPHs that rent non-standard booth space on the floor of
the Exchange pay a monthly fee on a per square foot basis for use of
the space. The per square foot fee that a TPH pays for non-standard
booth space is determined based on the size of the booth and length of
the non-standard booth lease term that the TPH entered

into with the Exchange. In general, the greater the size of the booth
and the longer the term of the lease, the less the TPH pays per square
foot of non-standard booth space. Specifically, non-standard booth
rental fees are assessed according to the following table: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee in the Facility Fees
section of the Fees Schedule available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Booth size           Per sq. ft.        Per sq. ft.        Per sq. ft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee..  Extra Large (1,000 sq.  $2.83............  $2.75............  $2.69
                                  ft. or greater).
                                 Large (800-999 sq.      4.12.............  4.00.............  3.91
                                  ft.).
                                 Medium (401-799 sq.     4.89.............  4.74.............  4.65
                                  ft.).
                                 Small (400 sq. ft. or   7.72.............  7.49.............  7.33
                                  less).
                                 Length of Lease.......  1 Year...........  2 Years (97%)....  3 Years (95%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that under the current Non-Standard Booth Rental
Fee table, a TPH that rents more space for less time than another TPH
may pay a lower total monthly non-standard booth rental fee than the
TPH that rents less space for more time. For example, under the current
Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee table, a TPH that rents a 700 square foot
non-standard booth for three years will pay $4.65 per square foot or a
total non-standard booth rental fee of $3,255 per month, whereas a TPH
that rents an 1,000 square foot non-standard booth for one year will
pay $2.83 per square foot or a total non-standard booth rental fee of
$2,830 per month. Thus, as demonstrated by the above example, in many
cases, a TPH may rent a bigger non-standard booth for less than a
smaller non-standard booth regardless of the lease term. The Exchange
believes that this regime creates an incentive for TPHs to rent more
non-standard booth space than they may need.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule so that TPHs that
rent more non-standard booth space would pay a higher non-standard
booth rental fee than those that rent less space. In particular, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to include the following
non-standard booth rental fee table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Square footage fee
   Non-Standard booth rental fee      Base booth      (up to 1,000 sq.
                                      rental fee            ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            $1,250  ....................
                                                    $1.70 (per sq. ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Exchange's proposal, a TPH that rents non-standard booth
space on the floor of the Exchange would pay a base non-standard booth
rental fee of $1,250 per month in addition to a square footage fee of
$1.70 per square foot per month based on the size of the TPH's non-
standard booth. Thus, under the proposed non-standard booth rental fee
change, a TPH that rents more non-standard booth space than another TPH
would pay more than the TPH with less space (i.e. $1.70 more per each
additional square foot that the TPH rents). For example, under the
proposed non-standard booth rental fee, a TPH that rents a 400 square
foot non-standard booth would pay a total non-standard booth rental fee
of $1,930 per month (i.e. $1,250 (base fee) + ($1.70 x 400 = $680
(square footage fee)) = $1930) while a TPH that rents an 1,000 square
foot non-standard booth would pay $2,950 per month ($1,250 + ($1.70 x
1,000) = $2,950).\4\ Under the proposed fee change, a TPH or TPH
organization would be able to rent up to 1,000 square feet of non-
standard booth space on the floor of the Exchange. The 1,000 square
foot cap would help ensure the availability of sufficient space on the
floor of the Exchange to accommodate TPHs and TPH organizations that
wish to rent non-standard booths.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There are currently four TPH organizations that rent non-
standard booths on the floor of the Exchange. Notably, under the
proposed rule change, non-standard booth rental fees would be
similar to what they are now under the current Fees Schedule. In no
case would a TPH's non-standard booth rental fee increase by more
than $120 per month and in some cases, non-standard booth rental
fees would decrease under the proposed rule change.
    \5\ No TPH currently rents more than 1,000 feet of non-standard
booth space on the floor of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notably, under the proposed fee change, effective September 1,
2016, the Exchange would no longer offer discounts for longer lease
terms--all lease terms would be for a period of one year.\6\ Thus, the
separate one year, two year, and three year columns in the Non-Standard
Booth Rental Fee section of the current Fees Schedule would be deleted
and the Notes in the proposed Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee table of
the Fees Schedule would provide that non-standard booths must be leased
for a term of one year. In addition, the Exchange proposes to make
other corresponding changes to the Notes section of the Non-Standard
Booth Rental Fee table in the Fees Schedule reflecting that non-
standard booth rental fees would continue to be assessed on a monthly
basis and would include both the base booth rental fee plus the
appropriate square footage fee as determined based on the size of the
booth.\7\ The current early termination penalty provisions in the Notes
section of the Non-Standard Booth Rental Fee table would remain
unchanged, but would include an additional provision providing that
early termination penalties will not be assessed for early termination
of leases entered into prior

to August 1, 2016 that are terminated by mutual agreement of the TPH
organization and the Exchange.\8\ The Booth Pass-Through Fee would
remain unchanged.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange's proposed rule change, however, would not
apply retroactively. Unexpired leases signed under the terms
provided in the current Fees Schedule that are currently in force
would be effective and enforceable until expiration unless
termination were mutually agreed to between the TPH and the
Exchange. As stated above, there are currently four TPH
organizations that rent non-standard booths on the floor of the
Exchange pursuant to preexisting leases (each of which expires in
2016). The Exchange believes that several of these TPH organizations
may wish to terminate their leases by mutual agreement with the
Exchange because renewal under the proposed rule change would result
in a beneficial cost savings. The Exchange would agree to terminate
all such preexisting leases with the appropriate consent of each
respective TPH.
    \7\ Compare proposed Notes language with the current Notes
section of the Non-Standard Booth Rental Fees Table in the Fees
Schedule, which provides that a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'')
organization will pay the fees per square foot on a monthly basis
for use of a non-standard booth. Currently, the fee per square foot
a TPH organization will pay is determined based on the size of the
booth and length of the lease the TPH organization enters into with
the Exchange. The greater the size of the booth and the longer the
term of the lease will result in a reduced fee per square foot.
    \8\ Under the early termination provisions in Notes to the Non-
Standard Booth Rental Fee in the current Fees Schedule, a TPH
organization that terminates its lease prior to its expiration date
will, on the effective date of such termination, pay to the Exchange
an amount equal to twenty five percent (25%) of the balance of the
monthly charges remaining in the lease term.
    \9\ Pursuant to the Booth Pass-Through Fee, TPHs bear
responsibility for all costs associated with any modifications and
alterations to any trading floor booths leased by the TPH (or TPH
organization) and must reimburse the Exchange for all costs incurred
in connection therewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ 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) \12\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\13\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its TPHs
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that non-
standard booth rental fees should be designed such that TPHs that rent
more non-standard booth space on the floor of the Exchange pay more
than those that rent less non-standard booth space. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act in
that it provides for equitable allocation of reasonable fees among TPHs
by requiring those that use more resources to pay more than those that
use less. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
would simplify the way that non-standard booth rental fees are assessed
on the Exchange and add clarity to the Fees Schedule. The Exchange
believes that adding clarity to the Rules is in the best interests of
investors and the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or
otherwise promote, competition by adopting a simpler fee structure for
non-standard booth rental on the floor of the Exchange. Under the
proposed non-standard booth rental fee all TPHs would pay the same base
rate with those that rent more space paying a higher square footage fee
than those that rent less space on proportional basis.

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 written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-063 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-063. 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-CBOE-2016-063, and should be
submitted on or before September 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21380 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I first tried e-cigarettes as a means of quitting after trying every other known method. Gum, patches, and even shamefully admitted, hypnosis. What a difference it made! Being a pack a day smoker for 5 years and after nights of waking up coughing up blood I could finally breathe and sleep soundly through the night. My sense of taste and smell returned and I was even saving money. E- cigarettes have changed my life for the best. After just 3 months I have cut my nicotine intake by half and will continue to reduce it to eventualy be nicotine free.   I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42673-42674]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14833-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Snoosh Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project to be located in
Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
upper reservoir with a surface area of 66 acres and a storage capacity
of 990 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,670 feet
above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new
roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dam and/or dike; (2)
excavating a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 60 acres and a
total storage capacity of 1,188 acre-feet at a surface elevation of
1,850 feet msl; (3) a new 2,670-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock
connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-
foot-wide powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a
total rated capacity of 67 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line
connecting the powerhouse to a nearby 115-kilovolt electric grid
interconnection point; and (6) appurtenant facilities. Possible initial
fill water and make-up water would come from the nearby Raystown Branch
of the Juniata River, including groundwater. The proposed project would
have an annual generation of 242,920 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC,
5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of

intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of
this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system 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_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14833-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14833) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19118 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 75161-75163]
[DOCID:fr10de08-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59043; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the Nasdaq Options Market

December 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 21, 2008, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has filed

the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 7050 governing pricing for Nasdaq
members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility
for executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to adopt a credit of $0.35 per executed
contract to members who provide liquidity using price-improving orders
through NOM. Nasdaq will make the proposed rule change effective on
December 1, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is below.
Proposed new language is in italics.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    7050. NASDAQ Options Market.
    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the NASDAQ Options Market by members for all
securities.
    (1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the NASDAQ Options Market.
    Charge to member entering order that executes in the NASDAQ Options
Market: $0.45 per executed contract.
    For a pilot period ending July 31, 2009, charge for members or non-
members entering order via the Options Intermarket Linkage that
executes in the Nasdaq Options Market.
    Credit to member providing liquidity through the NASDAQ Options
Market: $0.30 per executed contract.
    Credit to member providing liquidity using price-improving orders
through the NASDAQ Options Market: $0.35 per executed contract.
    (2)--(4) No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to modify Rule 7050 to allow for a credit of
$0.35 per executed contract to members who provide liquidity using
price-improving orders through NOM. Currently, members that provide
liquidity through NOM receive a credit of $0.30 per executed contract.
Nasdaq believes increasing the credit to $0.35 per executed contract
for those members that provide liquidity using price-improving orders
through NOM should help to encourage additional price improvement,
which should in turn, benefit takers of liquidity and investors.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls. Nasdaq believes that the proposed
credit should encourage additional price improvement which should, in
turn, benefit takers of liquidity and investors in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
Nasdaq has designed its fees to compete effectively for the execution
and routing of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to
investors of options trading.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-089 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-089. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington,

DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2008-089 and should be submitted
on or before December 31, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29136 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54867-54870]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19577]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78546; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.91(b) To Provide for the
Rejection of Certain Electronic Complex Orders

August 11, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.91(b) to provide for the
rejection of certain Electronic Complex Orders. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at

www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 proposing to amend Rule 6.91(b) to provide for the
rejection of certain Electronic Complex Orders (``ECOs'').\3\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reject certain ECOs that may
undermine the effectiveness of risk limitation mechanisms designed to
protect Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 6.62(e) defines a Complex Order as any order involving
the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different
option series in the same underlying security, for the same account,
in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and
less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of
executing [sic] particular investment strategy. Per Rule 6.91, an
ECO is a Complex Order that has been entered into the NYSE Amex
Options System (``System'') for execution. See Rule 6.91 (preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requires a Market Maker to utilize its risk limitation
mechanisms, which automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all
series of an options class when certain parameter settings are
triggered.\4\ This functionality is designed to mitigate the risk of
multiple executions on a Market Maker's quotes occurring simultaneously
across multiple series and multiple option classes. Pursuant to Rule
6.40, the Exchange establishes a time period during which the System
calculates: (1) The number of trades executed by the Market Maker in a
specified options class; (2) the volume of contracts traded by the
Market Maker in a specified options class; or (3) the percentage of the
Market Maker's quoted size in the specified class that has been
executed (the ``risk settings'').\5\ When a Market Maker has breached
its risk settings (i.e., has traded more than the contract or volume
limit or cumulative percentage limit of a class during the specified
measurement interval), the System will cancel all of the Market Maker's
quotes in that class until the Market Maker notifies the Exchange it
will resume submitting quotes.\6\ The purpose of the risk settings,
therefore, is to allow Market Makers to provide liquidity across
potentially thousands of options series without being at risk of
executing the full cumulative size of all such quotes before being
given adequate opportunity to adjust their quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 6.40(b)(3), (c)(3) and (d)(3). Market Makers are
required to utilize one of the three risk settings for their quotes.
See Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40. Market Makers and OTP Holders may
utilize the risk limitation mechanisms for certain orders, but they
are not required to do so. See, e.g., Rule 6.40(b)(1), (2); (c)(1),
(c)(2).
    \5\ See Rule 6.40(b)(3), (c)(3) and (d)(3). Market Makers are
required to utilize one of the three risk settings for its quotes.
See Commentary .04 to Rule 6.40.
    \6\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 6.40 (requiring that a Market
Maker request that it be re-enabled after a breach of its risk
settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming ECO may execute against quotes or individual orders
comprising the Complex Order (the ``leg markets'') or against ECOs
resting in the Consolidated Book.\7\ An ECO trading against the leg
markets is commonly referred to as ``legging out.'' Current Rule
6.91(a)(2)(ii) provides that an incoming ECO will execute first with
the leg markets, ahead of resting ECOs at the same price (i.e., the
same total net debit or credit), provided the leg markets can execute
the ECO in full or in a permissible ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The execution of certain ECOs against the leg markets can be
problematic because ECOs that leg out may execute before triggering a
Market Maker's risk settings. Specifically, because the execution of
each leg of an ECO is contingent on the execution of the other legs,
the execution of all individual leg markets is processed as a single
transaction, not as a series of individual transactions. Thus, while
the risk settings allow a Market Maker to manage the risks associated
with providing liquidity across multiple series of an options class,
the settings do not adequately provide this risk protection because the
legs of an ECO execute in a single transaction package before
processing any subsequent messages. The practical result is that
because all legs of an ECO execute before a Market Marker has an
opportunity to react, such ECO executions are essentially able to
bypass the Market Maker's risk settings.
    Of particular concern to the Exchange are ECOs where two or more
legs are buying (selling) calls (puts), which are commonly referred to
as ``directional complex orders.'' Such directional complex orders are
typically geared towards an aggressive directional capture of
volatility. Specifically, through a combination of buying or selling of
multiple option legs at once, a market participant using one of these
strategies is aggressively buying or selling volatility. By contrast,
other types of complex strategies are designed to gain exposure to a
particular option class' movement.\8\ The Exchange has seen a recent
increase in the use of directional complex orders as a way to trade
against multiple series on the same side of the market without
triggering Market Maker risk settings. If the same legs were sent as
individual orders, rather than as components of a directional complex
order, Market Maker risk settings may have been triggered.\9\ The
Exchange is concerned that the use of directional complex orders is
undermining the important purpose of the Market Makers risk settings,
which the Exchange requires Market Makers to use for all quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that the majority of ECOs are calendar
and vertical spreads, butterflies and straddles, which are designed
to hedge the potential move of the underlying security or to capture
premium from an anticipated market event.
    \9\ For example, if individual orders to buy 10 contracts for
the Jan 30 call, Jan 35 call and Jan 40 call are entered, each is
processed as it is received and the Market Maker risk settings are
calculated following the execution of each 10-contract order. Thus,
if either the first order or the second order trigger a Market
Maker's risk settings, the System would cancel all of the Market
Maker's quotes in that class until the Market Maker notifies the
Exchange it will resume submitting quotes (see Commentary .01 to
Rule 6.40). However, if an ECO to buy all three of these options
with a quantity of 10 contracts is entered and is executed against
the leg markets, the Market Maker risk settings for quotes in the
leg market are calculated only after the execution of all 30
contracts (the sum of the three legs of 10 contracts each) because
the execution of all individual leg markets is processed as a single
transaction, not as a series of individual transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the potential for directional ECOs to undermine the
purposes of the Market Maker risk settings, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 6.91(b)(4). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reject an
ECO if:
    (i) Composed of two legs that are (a) both buy orders or both sell
orders, and (b) both legs are calls or both legs are puts; or
    (ii) composed of three or more legs and (a) all legs are buy
orders; or (b) all legs are sell orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 6.91(b). The Exchange also proposes to
delete the words ``Types of'' in the first paragraph because sub-
paragraphs (1)-(4) of paragraph (d) do not describe the ``types of''
ECOs, but rather describe the requirements for such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would not impact the processing of ECOs
trading against other ECOs or the priority and

allocation of ECOs. The following examples illustrate the types of ECOs
that would be rejected under proposed Rule 6.91(b):
Example #1: Illustrating Proposed Rule 6.91(b)(4)(i)
 Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2
 Sell Call 1, Sell Call 2
 Buy Put 1, Buy Put 2
 Sell Put 1, Sell Put 2
Example #2: Illustrating Proposed Rule 6.91(b)(4)(ii)
 Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2, Buy Put 1
 Buy Put 1, Buy Put 2, Buy Put 3
 Buy Call 1, Buy Call 2, Buy Call 3
 Buy Put 1, Buy Put 2, Buy Call 3
 Sell Put 1, Sell Put 2, Sell Call 1
    As proposed, the specified directional complex orders would be
automatically rejected. Market participants would continue to be able
to enter each leg of such complex orders as separate orders. The
Exchange believes that the potential risk of these types of directional
complex orders undermining the effectiveness of Market Maker risk
settings outweighs any potential benefit to OTP Holders or OTP Firms
submitting such orders.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that both the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') and International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') have recently received Commission approval to revise their
rules governing complex orders to implement functionality designed to
prevent complex orders from effectively bypassing market maker risk
parameters.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 73023 (September
9, 2014) 79 FR 55033 (September 15, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-10) and 72986
(September 4, 2014) 79 FR 53798 (September 10, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-
017) (Approval Order). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
76106 (October 8, 2015) 80 FR 62125 (October 15, 2015) (SR-CBOE-
2014-081); 77297 (March 4, 2016), 81 FR 12764 (March 10, 2016) (SR-
CBOE-2016-014) (further amending the complex order rule, as modified
by the Approval Order, to limit a potential source of unintended
market maker risk). The Exchange acknowledges that, unlike this
proposal, CBOE and ISE do not reject the offending ECOs outright.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\12\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices and would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because it would enable the
Exchange to reject (and therefore prevent the execution of) certain
directional complex order strategies that may undermine important
Market Maker risk settings, which are required for all Market Maker
quotes. The Exchange believes that rejecting the specified directional
orders outright provides clarity as to the disposition of ECOs
submitted by market participants and assures that the Market Maker risk
settings will operate as intended. The Exchange notes that other
markets have amended their rules to prevent directional complex orders
from undermining market maker risk settings and do not allow such
orders to leg out.\14\ Because of the non-traditional nature of these
directional complex orders, the Exchange believes it unlikely that they
would execute against complex interest. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes rejecting the orders outright (as opposed to simply preventing
them from legging out) would have the same practical impact for the
order-sending firms and would be the most effective and transparent
means of handling these orders. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
the risk of the specified directional complex orders undermining the
efficacy of Market Maker risk settings outweighs any potential benefit
to OTP Holders or OTP Firms submitting such orders packaged as ECOs.
The Exchange notes that market participants would continue to be able
to enter each leg of such complex orders as separate orders. The
Exchange also believes this proposal would protect investors and the
public interest because it would help eliminate a degree of unnecessary
risk borne by Market Makers when fulfilling their quoting obligations
to the markets and would encourage them to contribute liquidity on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes the strengthened risk settings would
encourage Market Makers to provide tighter and deeper markets, to the
benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices and would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because, by rejecting (and
therefore preventing the execution of) certain directional complex
order strategies that may undermine important Market Maker risk
settings, which are required for all Market Maker quotes. The Exchange
believes that rejecting the specified directional orders outright
provides clarity as to the disposition of ECOs submitted by market
participants and assures that the Market Maker risk settings will
operate as intended. The Exchange notes that other markets have amended
their rules to prevent directional complex orders from undermining
market maker risk settings and do not allow such orders to leg out.\15\
Because of the non-traditional nature of these directional complex
orders, the Exchange believes it unlikely that they would execute
against complex interest. Accordingly, the Exchange believes rejecting
the orders outright (as opposed to simply preventing them from legging
out) would have the same practical impact for the order-sending firms
and would be the most effective and transparent means of handling these
orders. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the risk of the
specified directional complex orders undermining the efficacy of Market
Maker risk settings outweighs any potential benefit to OTP Holders or
OTP Firms submitting such orders packaged as ECOs. The Exchange notes
that market participants would continue to be able to enter each leg of
such complex orders as separate orders. The Exchange also believes this
proposal would protect investors and the public interest because it
would help eliminate a degree of unnecessary risk borne by Market
Makers when fulfilling their quoting obligations to the markets and
would encourage them to contribute liquidity on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes the strengthened risk settings would encourage Market
Makers to provide tighter and deeper markets, to the benefit of all
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra n. 11.

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal qualifies for accelerated
effectiveness in accordance with section 19(b)(2) of the Act. The
Exchange believes that there is good cause for the Commission to
accelerate effectiveness because the proposed rule change is consistent
with the rules of at least two competing options markets, which have
amended their rules to prevent directional complex orders from
undermining market maker risk settings and do not allow such orders to
leg out.\16\ The Exchange would like to similarly enhance the
protection it provides to Market Makers. Because of the non-traditional
nature of these directional complex orders, the Exchange believes it
unlikely that they would execute against complex interest. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes rejecting the orders outright (as opposed to
simply preventing them from legging out) would have the same practical
impact for the order-sending firms and would be the most effective and
transparent means of handling these orders. Thus, accelerated approval
of this proposal would enable the Exchange to implement the rule change
without delay, thereby strengthening market maker risk settings and
enhancing the competitiveness of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rejection of
the specified directional complex orders would prevent such orders from
executing before triggering (and thus, bypassing) the Market Maker risk
settings. The Exchange believes that the potential risk of these types
of directional complex orders undermining the effectiveness of Market
Maker risk settings outweighs any potential benefit to OTP Holders or
OTP Firms submitting such orders. Market participants would continue to
be able to enter each leg of such complex orders as separate orders.
Thus, the Exchange believes good cause exists to accelerate
effectiveness of this proposal because it would help eliminate a degree
of unnecessary risk borne by Market Makers when fulfilling their
quoting obligations to the markets, which would in turn benefit all
market participants because Market Makers would be encouraged to
provide tighter and deeper markets.
    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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-NYSEARCA-2016-109 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-NYSEARCA-2016-109. 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 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-NYSEARCA-2016-109 and should
be submitted on or before September 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19577 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71544]
[DOCID:fr29no05-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1613-DR]

Puerto Rico; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-1613-DR), dated
November 10, 2005, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective November 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 10, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from severe storms, flooding,
landslides, and mudslides on October 9-15, 2005, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that
such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas; Hazard Mitigation island-wide for the principal
island of Puerto Rico within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation, will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Director, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justo Hernandez, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico to have been affected adversely by this declared major
disaster:

    The municipalities of Aibonito, Juana D[iacute]az, Lares,
Maricao, Pe[ntilde]uelas, Ponce, Salinas, Santa Isabel, Utuado,
Villalba, Yabucoa, and Yauco for Public Assistance.
    All municipalities in the principal island of Puerto Rico within
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are eligible to apply for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E5-6655 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]