[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43845-43849]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18058]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86697; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.40-
O To Reduce the Minimum Allowable Parameter for the Transaction- and
Volume-Based Settings in the Risk Limitation Mechanism

August 16, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the

``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that,
on August 7, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40-O (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the
transaction- and volume-based settings in the Risk Limitation
Mechanism. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.40-O (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to reduce the minimum allowable parameter for the
transaction- and volume-based settings in the Risk Limitation
Mechanism. The filing would align the minimum allowable parameter for
the transaction- and volume-based settings with the minimum allowable
setting for the percentage-based setting, which the Exchange reduced
earlier this year.\4\ This proposal would allow the Exchange to (opt
to) set uniform minimum exposure requirements, particularly for Market
Makers who are obligated to utilize one of the three risk settings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85494 (April 3,
2019), 84 FR 14166 (April 9, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-18) (lowering
from 100% to one percent the minimum allowable parameter for the
percentage-based risk setting). For consistency with the proposed
textual changes, the Exchange proposes to modify ``1'' to ``one'' in
regards to the minimum allowable percentage-based parameter. See
proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O.
    \5\ See infra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Risk Limitation Mechanism
    Rule 6.40-O sets forth the risk-limitation mechanism (the
``Mechanism''), which is designed to help Market Makers, as well as OTP
Holder and OTP Firms (collectively, ``OTPs''), better manage risk
related to quoting and submitting orders, respectively, during periods
of increased and significant trading activity.\6\ The Exchange requires
Market Makers to utilize a risk limitation mechanism for quotes, which
automatically removes a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an
options class when certain parameter settings are breached.\7\ The
Exchange permits, but does not require, OTPs (including Market Makers)
to utilize its risk limitation mechanism for orders, which
automatically cancels such orders when certain parameter settings are
breached.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Market Makers are included in the definition of OTPs and
therefore, unless the Exchange is discussing the quoting activity of
Market Makers, the Exchange does not distinguish Market Markers from
OTPs when discussing the risk limitation mechanisms. See Rule
1.1(nn) (defining OTP Holder as ``a natural person, in good
standing, who has been issued an OTP, or has been named as a
Nominee'' that is ``a registered broker or dealer pursuant to
Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or a nominee or
an associated person of a registered broker or dealer that has been
approved by the Exchange to conduct business on the Exchange's
Trading Facilities''). See also Rule 6.32-O(a) (defining a Market
Maker as an individual ``registered with the Exchange for the
purpose of making transactions as a dealer-specialist on the Floor
of the Exchange or for the purpose of submitting quotes
electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist
through the NYSE Arca OX electronic trading system'').
    \7\ See Rule 6.40-O, Commentary .04(a) (providing that Market
Makers are required to utilize one of the three risk settings for
their quotes); and Commentary .01 (regarding the cancellation of
quotes once the risk settings have been breached).
    \8\ See Rule 6.40-O, Commentary .04(b) (providing that OTPs may
avail themselves of one of the three risk limitation mechanisms for
certain of their orders) and Commentary .01 (regarding the
cancellation of orders once the risk settings have been breached).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.40-O, the Exchange establishes a time period
during which the Mechanism calculates for quotes and orders,
respectively: (1) The number of trades executed by the Market Maker or
OTP in a particular options class (``transaction-based''); (2) the
volume of contracts traded by the Market Maker or OTP in a particular
options class (``volume-based''); or (3) the aggregate percentage of
the Market Maker's quoted size or OTP's order size(s) executed in a
particular options class (``percentage-based'') (each a ``risk
setting''; collectively, the ``risk settings'').\9\ If a risk setting
is triggered, the Mechanism will cancel all of the Market Maker's
quotes or the OTP's open orders in that class until the Market Maker or
OTP notifies the Exchange it will resume submitting quotes or
orders.\10\ The temporary suspension of quotes or orders from the
market that results when the risk settings are triggered is meant to
operate as a safety valve that enables Market Makers and/or OTPs to re-
evaluate their positions before requesting to re-enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 6.40-O (b)-(d) (setting forth the three risk
limitation mechanisms available). A Market Maker may activate one
Risk Limitation Mechanism for its quotes (which is required) and a
different Risk Limitation Mechanism for its orders (which is
optional), even if both are activated for the same class. See also
Commentary .08 to Rule 6.40-O.
    \10\ See Commentaries .01 and .02 to Rule 6.40-O (requiring that
a Market Maker or OTP Holder request that it be re-enabled after a
breach of its risk settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to Minimum Parameter for Transaction- and Volume-Based
Risk Settings
    Per Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O, the Exchange establishes outside
allowable parameters for each risk setting and announces by Trader
Update ``any applicable minimum, maximum and/or default settings for
the Risk Limitation Mechanisms'' that are at or within these outside
parameters. OTPs, in turn, adjust their own risk settings within the
Exchange-established parameters, based on risk tolerance, taking into
account such factors as present and anticipated market conditions, news
in an option, and/or sudden change in volatility of an option. Put
another way, the rule sets forth the minimum/maximum for each risk
setting and the Exchange may, but does not have to, use these settings.
However, the Exchange may instead choose settings that are higher than
the minimum and lower than the maximum settings (i.e., if the rule
allows a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10, the Exchange could use these
parameters or could instead establish a minimum of 3 and a maximum of
7). Once the Exchange determines and announces the applicable
parameters for each risk setting, the OTP, in turn, selects a setting
within the Exchange announced parameters that suits their risk
tolerance (i.e., assuming the Exchange selected a minimum of 3 and

a maximum of 7, the OTP may select a setting of 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7).
    Earlier this year--in April, the Exchange reduced from 100% to one
percent the minimum allowable parameter for the percentage-based risk
setting.\11\ For consistency and uniformity, the Exchange now proposes
to likewise adjust the minimum allowable parameter as established by
Rule for the other two risk settings: Transaction- and volume-based.
Currently, the transaction-based risk setting has a minimum allowable
parameter of three (trades) and the volume-based risk setting has a
minimum allowable parameter of 20 (contracts). The Exchange proposes to
reduce the minimum allowable parameter for both risk settings to
one.\12\ The following illustrates the potential impact should the
Exchange reduce to one (1) the minimum allowable parameter for each of
the transaction- and volume-based risk settings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 4.
    \12\ See proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O. The manner in
which Rule 6.40-O operates is not being amended in this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Impact of Reducing Transaction-Based Minimum Allowable
Parameter
    If a market participant utilizing the transaction-based risk
setting has interest in three series of the same underlying (A, B and
C), for 10 contracts each, and the market participant has set the
exposure risk to three, a single execution of any size in each series
(A, B and C) or a combination of three executions of any size in any
series (A, B or C) would result in the remaining interest in the class
being canceled. In this case, because the Mechanism is counting the
number of executions, the participant can be at risk for any number of
executions from 3 to thirty. However, if only two executions occur, no
other interest would be canceled. If there is a subsequent execution
within the applicable time period \13\ for any number of contracts, the
remaining interest in the class would be canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O (providing that the
Exchange will specify via Trader Update ``any applicable time
period(s) for the Risk Limitation Mechanisms; provided, however,
that the Exchange will not specify a time period of less than 100
milliseconds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the same facts as above, but instead the participant's exposure
risk is set to 1 transaction (as opposed to 3), a single execution in
any series for any number of contracts, would result in the remaining
interest in the class being canceled.
Examples of Impact of Reducing Volume-Based Minimum Allowable Parameter
    If a market participant utilizing the volume-based risk setting has
interest in three series of the same underlying (A, B and C), for 10
contracts each, and the market participant has set the exposure risk to
20 contracts, any combination of executions across the three series
that total twenty or more contracts would result in the remaining
interest in the class being canceled. In this case, because the
Mechanism is counting the volume (or number) of contracts executed, the
participant can be at risk for any number of contracts from 20 to 29
(executions of 10 contracts in series A and 9 contracts in series B
would not cause cancelation, but a subsequent execution of any number
of contracts in series C within the applicable time period \14\ would
result in the remaining interest in the class being canceled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the same facts as above, but instead the participant's exposure
risk is set to 1 contract (as opposed to 20), an execution in any
series for any number of contracts, will result in the remaining
interest in the class being canceled.
* * * * *
    The proposed reduction of the minimum parameter for each of the
transaction- and volume-based risk settings was specifically requested
by some OTPs and would inure to their benefit as it would allow the
Exchange to offer more sensitive risk controls. The Exchange notes that
it is not modifying the maximum threshold for either of the transaction
or volume-based settings, which provide OTPs, and Market Makers in
particular, the ability to more finely calibrate their risk
exposure.\15\ The Exchange believes a modification to the minimum
parameter for these risk settings would account for increased market
volatility and fragmentation, as well as the ever-increasing
automation, speed and volume transacted in today's electronic trading
environment. In this regard, this proposed change would provide the
Exchange with more flexibility within which to establish the lower
bound risk parameter for OTPs that use this risk setting. To the extent
this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange believes this should afford
such OTPs the ability to better calibrate and manage risk.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In 2016, the Exchange modified both the upper and lower
bound of the transaction-based setting and only the upper bound of
the volume-based (as well as the upper bound of the percentage-
based) risk setting. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79469
(December 5, 2016), 81 FR 89171 (December 9, 2016) (NYSEArca-2016-
155). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67714 (August 22,
2012), 77 FR 52104 (August 28, 2012) (NYSEArca-2012-87) (immediate
effective filing to introduce minimum and maximum parameters for the
risk settings).
    \16\ The Exchange would still announce by Trader Update the
actual minimum setting for the transaction- and volume-based risk
settings, which may be the same as or greater than the proposed
minimum parameter of one (1) (but no greater than the maximum
allowable transaction- or volume-based setting, as applicable). See
Commentary .03 to Rule 6.40-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OTPs are vulnerable to the risk from a system or other error or a
market event that may cause them to send a large number of orders or
receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their
exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as
the available risk settings, OTPs may opt to reduce the amount of order
flow and liquidity that they provide to the market, which could
undermine the quality of the markets available to market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed reduction of the minimum
parameter for each of the transaction- and volume-based risk settings
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market by providing the Exchange with more flexibility within
which to establish the appropriate lower bound of these risk settings,
in consideration of market conditions, which would enable this risk
setting to operate in the manner intended to the benefit of all market
participants. To the extent this flexibility is utilized, the Exchange
believes this should afford OTPs that utilize this risk setting the
ability to better calibrate and manage risk.

    Further, this proposed change, which was specifically requested by
some OTPs, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market because it would be available to all OTPs (if the
Exchange chooses to reduce the minimum parameter--down to one (1)--for
one or both of the transaction- and volume-based risk settings) and may
encourage more OTPs to utilize the transaction- or volume-based risk
settings, specifically, or the risk settings generally, which would
benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes this proposal
has the potential to help OTPs better manage their risk as it would
allow for more precise customization of their risk settings which
would, in turn, help OTPs avoid trading a number of contracts that
exceeds the OTP's risk tolerance level. In particular, this proposed
reduction in the minimum allowable parameter would mean that the
Exchange has the ability to set a minimum as low as one (1) for each of
the three risk settings.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other options exchanges offer risk settings
for quotes and orders, including analogous transaction- and volume-
based settings. For example, Rule 21.16, Risk Monitor Mechanism, on
both Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'') states that each BZX or EDGX Member may (but is not required
to) configure a single counting program or multiple counting programs
to govern its trading activity (i.e., on a per port basis).\20\ Just as
with the Exchange's risk settings, both BZX and EDGX offer risk
settings based on the number of contracts (or ``volume'') executed and
the number of executions (or ``count'') within a time period designated
by the BZX/EDGX member (collectively, the ``risk limits'').\21\ These
risk limits are calculated similarly to the risk setting on the
Exchange: For each series of an option class, the number of executions
or contracts traded (depending on the applicable risk setting) are
counted and when they reach the applicable threshold, the risk
protections are activated. Unlike the Exchange's rule, which
establishes potential minimum and maximum settings to be determined by
the Exchange, BZX/EDGX Rule 21.16 has no minimum equivalent, which
would allow the Member (whether orders or market maker quotes) to set
its risk settings for its trading activity as low as one contract or
one execution. And unlike the Exchange, BZX/EDGX do not require its
market makers to establish risk settings for quotes, nor does it impose
a default setting for participants that do not establish such risk
settings. The proposed change would authorize the Exchange to set the
minimum parameters for the transaction- and volume-based to be as low
as one trade or one contract, as applicable, which would thus allow the
Exchange's rule to align with the minimum per the percentage-based risk
setting as well as with the BZX/EDGX rule.\22\ The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with the BXZ/EDGX rules that allow
order senders (i.e., including non-Market Makers) to use a
transactional- or volume-based risk parameter that may be set as low as
one execution or one contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(i)-(iv) (providing optional
risk control settings). On each market (BZX and EDGX), risk setting
limits have been reached, the Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or
rejects such Member's orders or quotes in all underlying securities
and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes. See BZX and
EDGX Rule 21.16(b)(i)-(iii).
    \21\ See BZX and EDGX Rule 21.16(a)(i), (iii) (setting forth
volume and count risk settings). See also BZX and EDGX Rule
21.16(a)(iv) (setting forth percentage-based setting).
    \22\ The Exchange notes that other options in exchanges in the
Cboe family offer a similar Risk Monitor Mechanism. See, e.g., Cboe
C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') Rule 6.14(c)(5)(A)(i)-(v) (setting forth
risk settings, with paragraphs (i) and (iii) setting forth the
volume- and count (or transaction)-based setting, each of which
mirror those offered by BZX and EDGX). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 84778 (December 10, 2018), 83 FR 64384 (December 14,
2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-058) (immediately effective EDGX filing to
harmonize risk mechanism to that of its affiliated exchange, C2 in
Rule 21.16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cboe Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') Rule 8.18, Quote Risk Monitor
(``QRM'') likewise requires risk settings that apply solely to quotes.
For each such option class in which the Cboe market maker is engaged in
trading, that market maker must establish ``a maximum number of
contracts for such option class and ``the maximum number of series for
which either side of the quote is fully traded.\23\ While Cboe requires
a maximum for each of these risk settings, it does not require or set a
minimum. In addition, Nasdaq PHLX (``PHLX'')--like the Exchange and
Cboe--also requires its market makers to utilize one of its risk
settings (either volume-based or percentage-based) for quotes.\24\
PHLX's volume-based risk setting operates similar to the Exchange's
analogous setting, except that the PHLX market maker need only
establish a maximum volume threshold that, when reached, will trigger
PHLX to remove that market maker's quotes.\25\ The Exchange believes
that this proposal is consistent with the Cboe and PHLX rules that
require market makers on those exchanges to use a risk parameter that
may be set as low as one contract or one execution, given that those
exchanges only require that a maximum threshold be selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that the QRM also allows Cboe market
makers to establish ``a maximum cumulative percentage'' that the
market maker is willing to trade, where the cumulative percentage is
the sum of the percentages of the original quoted size of each side
of each series that traded, and a Measurement Interval.'' See Cboe
Rule 8.18.
    \24\ See PHLX Rule 1099(c)(2)(A),(B).
    \25\ See PHLX Rule 1099(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
would promote just and equitable principles of trade because Market
Makers have the option to select any one of the three risk settings for
quotes and non-Market Makers have this same option or may choose to
utilize no risk settings at all. Thus, this proposal merely provides
the Exchange additional latitude in establishing the potential minimum
for the transaction- and volume-based risk settings and may encourage
more OTPs to utilize these or the third (percentage-based) risk
setting, which benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange believes the technical change replacing ``one'' for
``1'' with regard to the minimum allowable percentage-based parameter
change would promote just and equitable principles of trade because it
would add internal consistency to Exchange rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is proposing a
minimum parameter for two of its risk settings that would provide the
Exchange with greater flexibility in establishing the appropriate lower
bound of the transaction and volume-based settings, which may in turn
provide OTPs that utilize this setting with greater control and
flexibility over setting their risk tolerance and, potentially, more
protection over risk exposure. The proposal is structured to offer the
same enhancement to all OTPs, regardless of size, and would not impose
a competitive burden on any participant. The proposal may foster
competition among Market Makers by providing them with the ability to
enhance and customize their settings in order to compete for executions
and order flow.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the
existing risk limitation mechanism would impose a burden on competing
options exchanges. Rather, it provides OTPs with the opportunity to
avail

themselves of risk settings for quotes and orders that are consistent
with such tools currently available on BZX, EDGX, Cboe and PHLX.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra notes 20-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \29\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \30\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
Exchange states that such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement
without delay the proposed functionality and compete more evenly with
other exchanges that offer similar functionality for quotes and orders.
Therefore, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-59 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-NYSEArca-2019-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-59 and should be submitted
on or before September 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18058 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45842-45843]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21119]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9968-37-ORD]

Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference
Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new reference method for
monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated one new reference method for measuring
concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) in ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods

and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth
in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference
method for measuring concentrations of CO in ambient air. These
designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as
amended on October 26, 2015(80 FR 65291-65468).
    The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer)
utilizing a measurement principle based on non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR)analysis and is identified as follows:
    RFCA-0817-248, ``Sabio Model 6050 Ambient CO Analyzer'', operated
in the measurement range of 0-50 ppm, at any ambient temperature in the
range of 5-40 [deg]C, at any line voltage in the range of 90-260 VAC,
at any sample flow rate in the range of 0.50-0.75 L/min, in accordance
with the Sabio Model 6050 Ambient CO Analyzer Instruction Manual, with
or without optional zero/span ports for external calibration, and with
or without an optional inlet filter.
    This application for a reference method determination for this CO
method was received by the Office of Research and Development on August
2, 2017. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant,
Sutron Corporation, 21 Cypress Blvd., Suite 1130, Round Rock, TX 78665.
    Representative test analyzers have been tested in accordance with
the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended
on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and
other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with Part 53, that these methods should be designated as a
reference or equivalent method.
    As a designated reference or equivalent method, these methods are
acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
For such purposes, each method must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and
subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or
operational settings) specified in the designated method description
(see the identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods
by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by
Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement
Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
    Designation of this equivalent method is intended to assist the
States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance
systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial
availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to
the applicant.

    Dated: September 19, 2017.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2017-21119 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23775]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0014; OMB No. 1660-0105]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request: Community Preparedness and Participation Survey

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a revision
of a currently approved collection for which approval expires on July
31, 2013. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice seeks comments concerning the FEMA Community Preparedness and
Participation Survey used to identify progress and gaps in citizen and
community preparedness.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 835, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Chad Stover, Program
Specialist, Individual and Community Preparedness Division at 202-786-
9860 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Community Preparedness and Participation
Survey measures the public's participation in individual and community
preparedness activities in accordance with direction in Executive Order
13254 to study and track the progress of public service programs.
Citizen Corps was launched as a Presidential Initiative, on January 29,
2002, with a mission to bring together government and community leaders
to involve citizens in all-hazards emergency preparedness and
resilience. In order to fulfill its mission, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Individual and Community Preparedness Division
(ICPD) will collect preparedness information from the public via a
telephone survey. Individuals are interviewed and asked to respond to a
series of survey questions. This collection of information, which began
in 2007, is necessary to increase the effectiveness of awareness and
recruitment campaigns, messaging and public information, community
outreach efforts, and strategic planning initiatives.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Preparedness and Participation Survey.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 008-0-15, Community Preparedness
Participation Survey.
    Abstract: The Individual and Community Preparedness Division uses
this information to more effectively improve the state of preparedness
and participation from the general public by customizing preparedness
education and training programs, messaging and public information
efforts, and strategic planning initiatives.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Respondents: 6,000 respondents.
    Number of Responses: 6,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,000.
    Estimated Cost: There are no record keeping, capital, start-up or
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: April 10, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-09398 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-27-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 8504]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG13-12-000.
    Applicants: Delano Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Delano Energy Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: EG13-13-000.
    Applicants: Alpaugh 50, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alpaugh 50, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: EG13-14-000.
    Applicants: Alpaugh North, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Alpaugh North, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-2124-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to the Triennial Market Power Report to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-780-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO refiling of errata to January 18, 2013 filing to
be effective 3/20/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-802-000.
    Applicants: New Energy Services LLC.
    Description: New Energy Services, LLC Market Based Rate Tariff to
be effective 3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-803-000.
    Applicants: MET MA LLC.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 1/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:
    Docket Numbers: LA12-4-000.
    Applicants: BP Energy Company, BP West Coast Products LLC, Cedar
Creek Wind Energy, LLC, Cedar Creek II, LLC, Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy
LLC, Flat Ridge Wind Energy, LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler
Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Goshen Phase II
LLC, Long Island Solar Farm LLC, Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC, Rolling
Thunder I Power Partners, LLC, Watson Cogeneration Company, and Whiting
Clean Energy, Inc.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of BP Energy
Company, Inc. et al.
    Filed Date: 1/28/13.
    Accession Number: 20130128-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: LA12-4-000.
    Applicants: APDC, Inc., Atlantic Power Energy Services (US) LLC,
Auburndale Power Partners, L.P., Cadillac Renewable Energy, LLC,
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, Delta Person Limited Partnership Frederickson
Power L.P., Lake Cogen, Ltd., Manchief Power Company LLC, Meadow Creek
Project Company LLC, Morris Cogeneration, LLC, Pasco Cogen, Ltd.,
Piedmont Green Power, LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC, Burley Butte Wind
Park, LLC, Camp Reed Wind Park, LLC, Golden Valley Wind Park, LL,;
Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC, Oregon Trail Wind Park, LLC, Payne's Ferry
Wind Park, LLC, Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC, Salmon Falls Wind
Park, LLC, Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC, Tuana Gulch Wind Park, LLC,
and Yahoo Creek Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of APDC, Inc., et
al.
    Filed Date: 1/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130125-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/13.

    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: January 28, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02655 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 129-130]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1428]

Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human Drug Compounding
Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled
``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human Drug Compounding
Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.'' The final guidance addresses new provisions in the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) added by the Drug
Quality and Security Act (DQSA) and updates reporting instructions for
drug compounders that choose to register as outsourcing facilities.
Such compounders must report information on the drugs they compounded
in Structured Product Labeling (SPL) format using FDA's electronic
submissions system unless FDA grants a request for a waiver of such
requirement because use of electronic means is not reasonable for the
person requesting the waiver. This guidance supersedes the revised
draft guidance entitled ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human
Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2013-N-1428 for ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human Drug
Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be

made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover
sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lysette Deshields, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human Drug Compounding
Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.'' In the Federal Register of November 24, 2014 (79 FR
69857), FDA announced the availability of a revised draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for Human Drug
Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' On November 27, 2013, President Obama
signed the DQSA into law (Pub. L. 113-54). The DQSA added a new section
503B to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b). Under section 503B(b), a
compounder can register as an outsourcing facility with FDA. If the
conditions outlined in section 503B(a) of the FD&C Act are satisfied, a
drug compounded by or under the direct supervision of a licensed
pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from certain sections
of the FD&C Act, including section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1))
(concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use) and
section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug
products under new drug applications or abbreviated new drug
applications). Drugs compounded in outsourcing facilities are not
exempt from the requirements of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing
practice for drugs).
    Under section 503B, an outsourcing facility must, at the time of
initial registration and twice each year, in June and December, submit
to FDA a report identifying the drugs compounded by the facility during
the previous 6-month period. For each identified drug, the outsourcing
facility must report the following information to FDA for each product
that it compounds:
     The active ingredient and strength of active ingredient
per unit;
     the source of the active ingredient (bulk or finished
drug);
     the National Drug Code (NDC) number of the source drug or
bulk active ingredient, if available;
     the dosage form and route of administration;
     the package description;
     the number of individual units produced; and
     the NDC number of the final product, if assigned.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 503B(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final guidance explains that registered outsourcing facilities
must provide reports to FDA on compounded drugs in SPL format using
FDA's electronic submissions system unless FDA grants a request for a
waiver of such requirement because use of electronic means is not
reasonable for the person requesting the waiver. It supersedes the
revised draft guidance entitled ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for
Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''
    The comment period for the revised draft guidance ended on January
23, 2015. FDA received three comments on the draft. In response to
received comments or on its own initiative, FDA made the following
changes and updates in the final guidance: (1) Clarified FDA's
definition of the source of the active ingredient used to compound the
final product and the information the outsourcing facility should
submit to FDA, including the appropriate format of the NDC code; (2)
clarified what information submitted as part of a product report will
be made public; and (3) made grammatical and other minor editorial
changes for clarity. In some cases, comments raised issues that were
not directly pertinent to the topics addressed in the revised draft
guidance.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Electronic Drug Product Reporting for
Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' It does not establish any
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains collections of information that are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections
of information have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0827.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 28, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31789 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39693]
[DOCID:fr07au09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OA98-7-001]

Northern California Power Agency; Notice of Filing

July 31, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 13, 2009, the Northern California Power
Agency filed changes regarding its partial waiver granted in 1988,
Eastern Utilities Comm. et al., 83 FERC 61,334 (1998), pursuant to the
Commission's Order, Material Changes in Facts Underlying Waiver of
Order 889 and Part 358 of the Commission Regulations, 127 FERC 61,141
(2009).
    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, 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 on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 2009.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18915 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P