[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48617-48619]
[DOCID:fr23se09-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60673; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
to Position Limit Exemptions

September 15, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 8, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rules 1001 (Position Limits)
and 1001A (Positions Limits) to enable Exchange members to rely on
position limit exemptions granted by other options exchanges.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx Rules 1001
and 1001A to enable Exchange members to rely on position limit
exemptions granted by other options exchanges under specified
circumstances.
    This proposed rule change is based on two rules of The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq'').\3\ The rule change is being proposed,
subsequent to the merger of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'')
and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (now NASDAQ OMX PHLX,
Inc.),\4\ to more closely align the position limit rules of the
Exchange and Nasdaq.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rules of the Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM Rules'')
Chapter III, Section 8 and Chapter XIV, Section 8.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58179 (July 17,
2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58183 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR
26182 (May 8, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-035).
    \5\ The proposal is similar in nature to previous proposals
that, among other things, sought to more closely align the rules of
the two exchanges Phlx and NOM. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 59764 (April 20, 2009), 74 FR 18761 (April 24, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-17) (approval order regarding proposal to modify the
process for nominating Phlx Governors); 59924 (May 14, 2009), 74 FR
23759 (May 20, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-23) (approval order regarding
proposal to eliminate various standing committees and making other
miscellaneous changes); 60431 (August 4, 2009), 74 FR 40265 (August
11, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-59)(notice of filing relating to by-laws,
Regulatory Oversight Committee, and referee program); and 59923 (May
14, 2009), 74 FR 23902 (May 21, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-046) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness relating to criteria for
securities that underlie options traded on NOM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx position limits and procedures associated therewith for equity
options, exchange traded fund share (``ETF'') options, currency
options, and stock index warrants are located in Rule 1001. This rule
deals with, in addition to numerical position limit values for the
noted products, the concept of control for position limit purposes,\6\
hedge exemptions,\7\ firm facilitation exemptions,\8\ and delta-based
equity

exemptions.\9\ Phlx position limits and procedures associated therewith
for index options are generally located in Rule 1001A. This rule, in
addition to numerical position limits for index options, deals with
position limit exemptions for index option products.\10\ Rules 1001 and
1001A, however, do not have provisions that recognize position limit
exemptions that are granted to Exchange members by other option
exchanges, as provided for in NOM Rules in Chapter III, Section 8 for
non-index options and Chapter XIV, Section 8 for index options.\11\ In
light of the desirability to have similar position limit standards, the
Exchange is adding such exemptions to its Rules 1001 and 1001A.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Commentary .06 to Rule 1001.
    \7\ See Commentary .07 to Rule 1001.
    \8\ See Commentary .08 to Rule 1001.
    \9\ See Commentary .09 to Rule 1001.
    \10\ See, for example, Commentaries .01 (hedge exemption) and
.02 (firm facilitation exemption) to Rule 1001A.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-
NASDAQ-2007-080) (approval order regarding NOM Rules including
Chapters III and XIV).
    \12\ Position limits for Cash Index Participations (``CIPs''),
which are defined in Rule 1000B(b)(1), are established in Phlx Rule
1005B. CIPs are not currently listed and traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, new Commentary .10 to Rule 1001 and new Commentary
.03 to Rule 1001A each provide that an Exchange member may rely upon
any available exemptions from applicable position limits that are
granted by another options exchange for any options contract traded on
the Exchange provided that such member provides the Exchange either
with a copy of any written exemption issued by another options exchange
or with a written description of any exemption issued by another
options exchange that is not in writing, where such description
contains sufficient detail for Exchange regulatory staff to verify the
validity of that exemption with the issuing options exchange. In
addition, the member must fulfill all conditions precedent for such
exemption and comply at all times with the requirements of such
exemption with respect to the member's trading on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that position limits tend to be similar across
options exchanges, which is desirable in light of cross option exchange
membership(s) and multiple listing and trading of similar product(s) on
different exchanges. Because Exchange members and member firms
frequently have membership and/or trading privileges on other options
exchanges, it is important that ad hoc position limit exemptions
granted by other options exchanges (``exemption grants'') are available
to Exchange members to the extent that such exemption grants are
reduced to writing and verifiable by Exchange staff per new
Commentaries .10 and .03 to Rules 1001 and 1001A, respectively.\13\
Proposed Commentaries .10 and .03 do not give the Exchange the ability
to expand the exemption grants but only to recognize the exemption so
that the position limit process would be the same across the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Proposed Commentaries .10 and .03 are, in turn, wholly
based on the approved rules of another options exchange, namely NOM
Rules Chapter III, Section 8 and Chapter XIV, Section 8, and as such
are not novel or in any way controversial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, during September 2009, firm XYZ may go to another
options exchange such as Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), the
International Securities Exchange (ISE), or NOM to request a position
limit exemption (exemption grant) in respect of option contracts in the
SPDRs (SPY). The other exchange provides the exemption grant until
expiration in the same month of September to this particular firm (XYZ)
for this particular issue (SPY). Should firm XYZ, which is an Exchange
member firm, then want to trade SPY on the Exchange to the extent of
the exemption grant, the Exchange's proposed rule change would allow it
to do so, but only to the extent that firm XYZ provides the Exchange
with a copy of the written exemption grant provided by the issuing
exchange or, if the exemption is not in writing to the extent that firm
XYZ provides the Exchange with sufficient detail for Exchange
regulatory staff to be able to verify the validity of the exemption
grant with the issuing options exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Additionally, firm XYZ would have to fulfill all conditions
precedent for such exemption grant and comply with the requirements
of such exemption with respect to trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by adding uniformity and predictability
to the position limit process, the proposed rule change should be
beneficial to the Exchange, its members and traders, and their
customers. Moreover, the proposed rule change should promote
competition by allowing trades across options exchanges that are
similar in respect of position limits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that all reporting requirements,
including Rule 1003 (Reporting of Options Positions) and Rule
1001A(c) (Reporting Requirements for Options on Market Indexes)
remain in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed 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, by allowing the Exchange to have uniform position limit
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\19\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
Phlx has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\20\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.\21\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative immediately upon filing, thereby giving the Exchange a
uniform position limit process that can recognize all exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will afford Exchange members the benefit of the
proposal--the ability to rely on

exemptions granted by other exchanges, when appropriately documented--
without unnecessary delay. For this reason, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change as operative under upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission 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 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-Phlx-2009-79 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2009-79.
    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. 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; 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-Phlx-2009-79 and
should be submitted on or before October 14, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22876 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45068-45071]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19259]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2018-0298; FRL-9983-15--Region 10]

Idaho: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to the EPA for authorization of certain
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has reviewed Idaho's
application and has determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and is proposing
to authorize the State's changes. The EPA seeks public comment prior to
taking final action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before
October 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2018-0298 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop OAW-150, Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop OAW-150, Seattle, Washington
98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal business
hours of operation; special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-
2018-0298. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment
through www.regulations.gov, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 Library,
1200 Sixth Avenue, First Floor Lobby, Seattle, Washington 98101. The
EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00
p.m. PST Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Region 10 Library telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Mail Stop OAW-150, Seattle,
Washington 98101, email: [email protected] or phone number
(206) 553-2416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Proposed Authorization Revision

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States that have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize their
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs
because of changes to the EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273,
and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this proposed rule?

    The EPA has determined that Idaho's application to revise its
authorized program meets the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to
grant Idaho final authorization to operate its hazardous waste
management program with the changes described in the authorization
application. Idaho will continue to have responsibility for permitting
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders
(except in Indian country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program described in its revised program application, subject to the
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and
which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in
authorized States before the States are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until Idaho is
granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?

    If Idaho is authorized for these changes, a facility in Idaho
subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State
requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements to
comply with RCRA. Additionally, such facilities will have to comply
with any applicable Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations
issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization
and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State
requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement authorities and
responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management program for
violations of its program. However, the EPA retains authority under
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others,
the authority to:
     Conduct inspections, which may include but is not limited
to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses, and/or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, which may include but is not
limited to suspending, terminating, modifying, and/or revoking permits;
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Idaho has
taken its own actions.
    The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho is requesting authorization are already effective under
State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

D. What happens if the EPA receives comments on this action?

    If the EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those
comments in a later final action. You may not have another opportunity
to comment. If you want to comment on this proposed authorization, you
should do so at this time.

E. What has Idaho previously been authorized for?

    Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous
waste management program effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March
26, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's
program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10,
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April
12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1,
2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March
10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26,
2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647,
December 23, 2008), July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012) and
September 21, 2015 (80 FR 20726, August 20, 2015).

F. What changes are we proposing to authorize?

    On March 29, 2018, Idaho submitted a program revision application
to the EPA requesting authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2016, incorporated by
reference in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> et seq., which were adopted and
effective in the State of Idaho on March 29, 2017. This authorization
revision request includes the following federal rules for which Idaho
is being authorized for the first time: Conditional Exclusions from
Solid and Hazardous Waste for Solvent Contaminated Wipes (78 FR 46448,
July 31, 2013); Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide Streams in
Geologic Sequestration Activities (79 FR 350, January 3, 2014);
Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System--Electronic
Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014); Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste--CFR Correction (79 FR 35290, June 20, 2014); Revisions
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June
26, 2014); Definition of Solid Waste (80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015);
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification
Rule (80 FR 18777, April 8, 2015); Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric Utilities (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015);
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities--
Correction of the Effective Date (80 FR 37988, July 2, 2015); and
Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member
Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR 37992,
July 2, 2015).
    The EPA proposes to authorize Idaho's revised hazardous waste
program in its entirety through July 1, 2016, as described above. The
EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

G. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State law that
is less stringent than the Federal program. Any State law that is less
stringent does not supplant the Federal regulations. State law that is
broader in scope than the Federal program requirements is not
authorized. State law that is equivalent to, and State law that is more
stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case
those provisions are enforceable by the EPA. This section discusses
certain rules in this proposed action where the EPA has made the
finding that Idaho's program is broader in scope, and discusses certain
portions of the Federal program that are not delegable to the State
because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy
matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain
decisions.
    Idaho is currently broader in scope than the Federal program in its
adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>. Both of these regulations include
provisions from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule that have
been vacated and replaced with the less stringent requirements found at
40 CFR 260.43 (2018) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2018), which
were reinstated from the 2008 DSW Rule. Idaho will be revising its
regulations to include this update as required by the vacatur to be
equivalent to the Federal program.
    The EPA cannot delegate certain Federal requirements associated
with the following rules: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest
System--Electronic Manifests (79 FR 7518, February 7, 2014), Revisions
to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube Rule (79 FR 36220, June
26, 2014), and Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes Between OECD
Member Countries--Revisions to the List of OECD Member Countries (80 FR
37992, July 2, 2015). Idaho has adopted these requirements and
appropriately

preserved EPA's authority to implement them.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If
the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions,
these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the
State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which
time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an
earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the
existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those
facilities located in Indian country. The EPA will not issue new
permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is
authorized. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not authorized.

I. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Idaho?

    Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that
qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this program revision does not
extend to Indian country where the EPA will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to revise the State of Idaho's authorized
hazardous waste management program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and
imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State
law. This authorization complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'', and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the E.O. The E.O. defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. The EPA has
determined that this proposed authorization is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed authorization does not establish or modify any
information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community
and only seeks to propose authorization for the pre-existing
requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires Federal agencies
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this proposed authorization on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by
the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. I certify that this proposed
authorization will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the proposed authorization
will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements
under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not
adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. This proposed authorization contains no
Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the
UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. It
proposes to impose no new enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also
determined that this proposed authorization contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. Thus, this proposed authorization is not subject
to the requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed authorization does not have federalism implications.
It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This document proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus,
E.O. 13132 does not apply to this proposed authorization.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed
authorization does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O.
13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus,
E.O. 13175 does not apply to this proposed authorization.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of
the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it proposes to approve a state
program.

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

    This proposed authorization is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
E.O. 12866, as discussed in detail above.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this
proposed authorization will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations. This proposed authorization does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment because this
document proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules which are
equivalent to and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements.

K. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority

    This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections
1006, 2002(a), 3006, and 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-19259 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Conference Call with CHWMEG for Docket

November 17, 2005

On Thursday November 17, 2005, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
team members from the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) had a conference call
with Jeff Sacre of CHWMEG, Inc. from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm. The purpose of
the call was to learn about the content and the process of the audits
that CHWMEG conducts, information for an analysis of overall good
hazardous waste recycling practices for a DSW rulemaking. The discussion
focused on the purpose and the growth of the CHWMEG organization, the
incentives of members to join, and the types of information collected as
a part of the audits they conduct on recycling and waste treatment and
disposal facilities, such as facility information and history,
compliance history, and financial information.

Kathy Blanton	Environmental Protection Agency

Amy Lile 	Environmental Protection Agency

Jeff Sacre	CHWMEG, Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2775-2776]
[FR Doc No: 2012-933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0033; Notice 2]

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant.

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

SUMMARY: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,(Goodyear),\1\ has determined
that approximately 26,224 Goodyear Assurance ComforTred Touring
passenger replacement car tires manufactured between January 4, 2010
and September 11, 2010, did not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(e) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Goodyear has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports (dated December 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear) is a replacement
equipment manufacturer incorporated in the state of Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Goodyear has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on March 18, 2011, in the Federal Register
(76 FR 15045). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2011-0033.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Mr. George Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5299, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Summary of Goodyear's Petition: Affected are approximately 26,224
Goodyear Assurance ComforTred Touring passenger car replacement tires,
size 215/70R15 that were manufactured between January 4, 2010 and
September 11, 2010.
    Goodyear explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on the tires incorrectly describes
the generic name of the cord material in the tread area of the tires as
required by paragraph S5.5(e). Specifically, the tires in question were
inadvertently manufactured with ``Tread: 1 Polyester Cord + 2 Steel
Cords + 1 Polyester Cord. The labeling should have been ``Tread: 1
Polyester Cord + 2 Steel Cords + 1 Nylon Cord.''
    Goodyear argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because while the non-compliant tires are mislabeled
they meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, the noncompliant sidewall marking does not create an unsafe
condition, and all other labeling requirements have been met.
    Goodyear points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    Goodyear additionally states that it has corrected the affected
tire molds and all future production will have the correct material
shown on the sidewall.
    In summation, Goodyear believes that the described noncompliance of
its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, and should be granted.
    NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with Goodyear that the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency
believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety in this case is that there is no effect of the noncompliances on
the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
Although tire construction affects the strength and durability, neither
the agency nor the tire industry provides information relating tire
strength and durability to the number of plies and types of ply cord
material in the tread and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire construction information along with
other information such as load capacity, maximum inflation pressure,
and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings, to assess
performance capabilities of various tires.
    In the agency's judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire
construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor
vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or
vehicle operation parameters on the ply material in a tire.

    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 26,224 \2\ tires that have already passed from the
manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Goodyear's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Goodyear as a replacement
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 26,224 of the affected
tires. However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve Goodyear
distributors of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce
of the noncompliant tires under their control after Goodyear
recognized that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: January 12, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-933 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17461-17462]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83047; File No. SR-BX-2018-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct a
Typographical Error Within Chapter VI, Section 9 of the BX Rules

April 13, 2018.
    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 April 10, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') 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 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 correct a typographical error within BX
Rule Chapter VI, Section 9.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 purpose of this rule change is amend Chapter VI, Section 9,
entitled ``Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM'')'' at Section 9(i)(C).
The Exchange proposes to amend the following sentence:

    If the PRISM Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any
other person or entity that is not a Public Customer and such order
is for 50 option contracts of more, or if the difference between the
NBBO is greater than $0.01, the Initiating Participant must stop the
entire PRISM Order at a price that is the better of: (i) The BX BBO
price improved by at least the Minimum Increment on the same side of
the market as the PRISM Order, or (ii) the PRISM Order's limit price
(if the order is a limit order), provided in either case that such
price is at or better than the NBBO.

    The Exchange proposes to replace the ``of'' with an ``or.'' The
Exchange believes that amending the rule will bring greater clarity to
the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the
public interest by correcting a typographical error within the rule to
bring greater clarity to the rule. The Exchange inadvertently inserted
the word ``of'' instead of ``or'' within Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(C).
This is a non-substantive correction to the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange inadvertently
inserted the word ``of'' instead of ``or'' within Chapter VI, Section
9(i)(C). This is a non-substantive correction to the current rule.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(iii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-012 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-BX-2018-012. 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-BX-2018-012 and should be submitted on
or before May 10, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08154 Filed 4-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33525-33526]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14434]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-P-1197]

Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification: Electric
Positioning Chair

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it
has received a petition requesting exemption from the premarket
notification requirements for an electric positioning chair with a
motorized positioning control that is intended for medical purposes and
that can be adjusted to various positions. The device is used to
provide stability for patients with athetosis (involuntary spasms) and
to alter postural positions. FDA is publishing this notice to obtain
comments in accordance with procedures established by the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2015-
P-1197, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket
number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For additional information on submitting
comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jismi Johnson, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1524, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6424<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Background

    Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three
regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification
of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Under the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295),
as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629),
devices are to be classified into class I (general controls) if there
is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are
sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (special
controls) if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to
provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is
sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such
assurance; and into class III (premarket approval) if there is
insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I
or class II and the device is a life sustaining or life supporting
device, or is for a use which is of substantial importance in
preventing impairment of human health or presents a potential
unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
    Most generic types of devices that were on the market before the
date of the 1976 amendments (May 28, 1976) (generally referred to as
preamendments devices) have been classified by FDA under the procedures
set forth in section 513(c) and (d) of the FD&C Act through the
issuance of classification regulations into one of these three
regulatory classes. Devices introduced into interstate commerce for the
first time on or after May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as
postamendments devices), are classified through the premarket
notification process under section

510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k). Section 510(k) of the FD&C
Act and the implementing regulations, 21 CFR part 807, require persons
who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification
(510(k)) containing information that allows FDA to determine whether
the new device is ``substantially equivalent'' within the meaning of
section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a legally marketed device that does
not require premarket approval.
    On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law FDAMA (Pub. L.
105-115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part, added a new section, 510(m),
to the FD&C Act. Section 510(m)(1) of the FD&C Act requires FDA, within
60 days after enactment of FDAMA, to publish in the Federal Register a
list of each type of class II device that does not require a report
under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act to provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act further
provides that a 510(k) will no longer be required for these devices
upon the date of publication of the list in the Federal Register. FDA
published that list in the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR
3142).
    Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that 1 day after date of
publication of the list under section 510(m)(1), FDA may exempt a
device on its own initiative or upon petition of an interested person
if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. This section
requires FDA to publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to
exempt a device, or of the petition, and to provide a 30-day comment
period. Within 120 days of publication of this document, FDA must
publish in the Federal Register its final determination regarding the
exemption of the device that was the subject of the notice. If FDA
fails to respond to a petition under this section within 180 days of
receiving it, the petition shall be deemed granted.

II. Criteria for Exemption

    There are a number of factors FDA may consider to determine whether
a 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of a class II device. These factors are discussed in the
guidance the Agency issued on February 19, 1998, entitled ``Procedures
for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket Notification, Guidance
for Industry and CDRH Staff.'' That guidance is available through the
Internet at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM080199.pdf. Send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of
the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard
copy. Please use the document number 159 to identify the guidance you
are requesting.

III. Proposed Class II Device Exemptions

    FDA has received the following petition requesting an exemption
from premarket notification for a class II device: Brian Orwat, Stryker
Medical, 3800 East Centre Ave., Portage, MI 49002 for its electric
positioning chair classified under 21 CFR 890.3110.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 9, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-14434 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20280-20281]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-320-084.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits an Amendment
to a Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement executed by Gulf South and one of
its customers in relation to the East Texas to Mississippi Expansion
Project etc.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080403-0255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-13-032.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas LLC submits Original Sheet
30 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 4/4/08.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-207.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1 and
Gathering negotiated rate agreement between ANR and Eagle Energy
Partners I, LP.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080404-0400.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-480-020.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission LP submits Original Sheet
118 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080403-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP02-534-007.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, LLC submits Original Sheet 8 et al.
to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective April 4,
2008.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080404-0399.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP04-42-003.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 107 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1, to
become effective 5/5/08.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP05-157-012.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.
    Description: Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC submits Original
Sheet 22 et al. as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to
become effective 4/4/08.

    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-666-002.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 378 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 3/1/08.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-124-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Tenth
Revised Sheet 130 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to be
effective date of June 1, 2008.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080404-0243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-127-002.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corp submits Tenth Revised
Sheet 268 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to be
effective date of June 1, 2008.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080404-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-300-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Co submits a report
supporting its gas compressor fuel factors and lost and unaccounted-for
gas factors for calendar year 2007.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080403-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-304-001.
    Applicants: Freebird Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Freebird Gas Storage LLC submits Original Sheet 3 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to become effective 5/
1/08.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-306-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System's CD
containing its notice of rate change.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080401-4005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-307-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Original Sheet
55A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-308-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Cross Pipeline Company submits Third Revised Sheet 78
et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to become effective
5/3/08.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-309-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 102A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to become
effective 5/5/08.
    Filed Date: 04/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-310-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company Ltd submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 11A et al. to Second Revised Volume 2, to become effective 11/17/
07.
    Filed Date: 04/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080407-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-411-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Fourth Revised
Sheet No. 51C to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, to
become effective 5/1/08.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080403-0252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 14, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7942 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61289-61290]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-35-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval of Acquisition of Assets
Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2570-033.
    Applicants: Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5235.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3099-018.
    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2017 Triennial Market-Based
Rate Update Filing for the Northeast Region of RC Cape May Holdings,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20171215-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3145-010; ER10-3116-010; ER13-1544-007; ER10-
3120-010; ER11-2036-010; ER16-930-004; ER10-3128-010; ER10-1800-011;
ER10-3136-010; ER11-2701-012; ER10-1728-010; ER15-1582-009; ER15-1579-
008; ER15-1914-010; ER16-1255-004; ER16-2201-003; ER16-1955-004; ER17-
1864-002; ER17-1871-002; ER17-1909-002; ER17-544-003; ER17-306-003;
ER16-1738-004; ER16-474-005; ER16-1901-004; ER16-468-004; ER15-2679-
006; ER16-2578-004; ER16-2541-003; ER15-2680-006; ER15-762-010; ER16-
2224-003; ER16-890-005; ER15-760-009; ER16-1973-004; ER16-1956-004.
    Applicants: AES Alamitos, LLC, AES Energy Storage, LLC, AES ES
Tait, LLC, AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C., AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, AES
Ohio Generation, LLC, AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C., Indianapolis Power &
Light Company, Mountain View Power Partners, LLC, Mountain View Power
Partners IV, LLC, The Dayton Power and Light Company, 65HK 8me LLC,
67RK 8me LLC, 87RL 8me LLC, Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC, Antelope DSR 1,
LLC, Antelope DSR 2, LLC, Bayshore Solar A, LLC, Bayshore Solar B, LLC,
Bayshore Solar C, LLC, Beacon Solar 1, LLC, Beacon Solar 3, LLC, Beacon
Solar 4, LLC, Central Antelope Dry Ranch C LLC, Elevation Solar C LLC,
FTS Master Tenant 1, LLC, Latigo Wind Park, LLC, North Lancaster Ranch
LLC, Pioneer Wind Park I LLC, Sandstone Solar LLC, Sierra Solar
Greenworks LLC, Solverde 1, LLC, Summer Solar LLC, Western Antelope
Blue Sky Ranch A LLC, Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch B LLC, Western
Antelope Dry Ranch LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update of the AES MBR
Affiliates for the Central Region.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2536-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Answer to Port of Oakland IA
Deficiency to be effective 2/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-215-001.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Proposed IPL Wholesale
Formula Rate Changes to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-216-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Proposed WPL Wholesale
Formula Rate Changes to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-469-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-12-18 Filing of PSP
Agreement with Placer County Water Agency to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-470-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: UGI submits Interconnection
and Operating Agreement, Service Agreement No. 1460 to be effective 12/
13/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20171218-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/18.

    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: December 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27834 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P