[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47275-47278]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17894]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0088; FRL-8792-02-OCSPP]

Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (August 2021)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial
filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the
body of this document, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited
exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Charles Smith, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports
granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public
comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are
the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included
in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these
petitions are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

Amended Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP [IN-11513]. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0194). [Spring Regulatory Sciences,
6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf of Nouryon
Chemicals LLC, ], requests to amend the exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for 910, 930, 940 and 960 [Alcohols,
C9-11-iso-, C10-rich, ethoxylated propoxylated] (CAS No. [154518-36-2]
when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations
[Joint Inerts Task Force Cluster Support]. The analytical method is
available to EPA The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because [it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance]. Contact: [RD].

Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 1E8909. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0310). The Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon
establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP# 1E8909, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR
180.411 for residues of the herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the table below is to
be determined by measuring only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-
2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the
free and conjugated forms of the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-
[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of fluazifop in or on
Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.03 ppm; Fruit, stone at 0.05 ppm; Onion,
green at 1.5 ppm; Rhubarb at 0.50 ppm; and Strawberry at 3.0 ppm.
Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0F8865. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0498). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the
tolerance(s) in 40 CFR 180.473 for residues of the herbicide,
glufosinate ammonium, determined by measuring the sum of glufosinate
ammonium, butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)
monoammonium salt, and its metabolites, 2-(acetylamino)-4-

(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid, and 3
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acid equivalents in or on oilseeds
crop subgroup 20C, cottonseed subgroup at 15 ppm and cotton gin
byproducts at 50 ppm. The high-performance liquid chromatography-
electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical glufosinate ammonium and metabolites
of concern. Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP [IN-11515]. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0323). [Spring Regulatory Sciences,
6620 Cypresswood Dr, Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf of Nouryon
Chemicals LLC, ], requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.910 and 180.930 for
residues of [Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-C9-11-
isoalkyl ethers, C10-rich, phosphates, potassium salts] (CAS Reg. No.
[2275654-37-8] when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations [Joint Inerts Task Force Cluster Support]. The analytical
method is available to EPA The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because [it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance]. Contact: [RD].

New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8874. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0434). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide
teflubenzuron in or on grape at 0.7 parts per million (ppm) and grape,
raisin at 0.9 ppm. The Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass
Spectrometry Detection (LC-MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the
teflubenzuron residues. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 1E8908. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.565 for residues of the insecticide,
Thiamethoxam {3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-
nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine{time}  and it's metabolite [N-(2-
chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N'-methyl-N'-nitro-guanidine], in or on
pineapple at 0.03 parts per million (ppm) and 0.05 ppm for pineapple,
process, residue. Liquid chromatography with either UV or MS detections
is used to measure and evaluate the chemical thiamethoxam and the
metabolite, CGA-322704. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 1E8909. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0310). The Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.411 for residues of the
herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the following commodities. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the table below is to be determined by measuring
only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-
2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms
of the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at
3 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 15
ppm; Chive, dried leaves at 40 ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.03
ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.05 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B at 3 ppm; Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 4 ppm; Papaya at
0.01 ppm; and Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 30 ppm.
The LC-MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 0F8857. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0290). Taminco US LLC, a subsidiary
of Eastman Chemical Company, 200 S Wilcox Drive, Kingsport, TN 37660-
5147, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues
of the fungicide chlormequat chloride in or on the raw agricultural
commodities barley grain at 8 parts per million (ppm), eggs at 0.1 ppm,
meat byproducts of cattle at 0.7 ppm, meat of cattle at 0.2 ppm, meat
byproducts of goats at 0.7 ppm, meat of goats at 0.2 ppm, meat
byproducts of hogs at 0.5 ppm, meat of hogs at 0.2 ppm, meat byproducts
of sheep at 0.7 ppm, meat of sheep at 0.2 ppm, milk at 0.5 ppm, poultry
meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm, poultry meat at 0.05 ppm, oat grain at 40
ppm, triticale grain at 5 ppm, and wheat grain at 5 ppm. The validated
LC-MS/MS method is used to measure and evaluate the chemical residues
of chlormequat chloride in plants and animal products. Contact: OPP-RD.
    5. PP 0F8875. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0352). Dow Agrosciences, 9330
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the nitrification
inhibitor][Nitrapyrin [2-chloro-6-(trichloroethyl) pyridine] and its
metabolite, 6-chloropicolinic acid (6-CPA) in or on: Cottonseed (crop
subgroup 20C) at 4.0 parts per million (ppm); cotton, gin byproducts at
0.6 ppm; cotton. Meal at 6.0 ppm; rice, grain at 0.03 ppm; and rice,
straw at 0.15 ppm. The validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass
spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical residues of nitrapyrin and 6-CPA). Contact: AD.
    6. PP 1F8912. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0435). Bayer CropScience, 800 N.
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to establish a tolerance
in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, diflufenican (N-(2,4-
difluorophenyl)-2-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-3-pyridinecarboxamide)
in or on Soybean, forage at 0.015 parts per million (ppm), Soybean, hay
at 0.02 ppm, Soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm, Corn, forage at 0.01 ppm, Corn,
grain at 0.01 ppm, and Corn, stover at 0.01 ppm. High performance
liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical diflufenican.
Contact: RD.
    7. PP 1F8917. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0400). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
Picarbutrazox ((1,1-dimethylethylN-[6-[[[(Z)-[1-methyl-1H-tetrazol-5-
yl)phenylmthylene]amino]oxy]methyl]-2-pyridinyl]carbamate) in or on
Barley, grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); Barley, hay at 0.01 ppm;
Barley, straw at 0.01 ppm; Bean, forage at 0.01 ppm; Bean, hay at 0.01
ppm; Buckwheat, forage at 0.01 ppm; Buckwheat, grain at 0.01 ppm;
Buckwheat, hay at 0.01 ppm; Buckwheat, straw at 0.01 ppm; Cotton at
0.01 ppm; Cotton, gin byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed
at 0.01 ppm; Herb group 25 at 0.01 ppm; Millet, pearl, forage at 0.01
ppm; Millet, pearl, grain at 0.01 ppm; Millet, pearl, hay at 0.01 ppm;
Millet, pearl, straw at 0.01 ppm; Millet, proso, forage at 0.01 ppm;
Millet, proso, grain at 0.01 ppm; Millet, proso, hay at 0.01 ppm;
Millet, proso, straw at 0.01 ppm; Oat, forage at 0.01 ppm; Oat, hay at
0.01 ppm; Oat, straw at 0.01 ppm; Oat, grain at 0.01 ppm; Pea, hay at
0.01 ppm; Pea, vines at 0.01 ppm; Rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.01 ppm;
Rye, forage at 0.01 ppm; Rye, grain at 0.01 ppm; Rye, hay at 0.01 ppm;
Rye, straw at 0.01 ppm; Sorghum at 0.01 ppm; Spice group 26 at 0.01
ppm; Spinach at 0.01 ppm; Teosinte, forage at 0.01 ppm; Teosinte, grain
at 0.01 ppm; Teosinte, hay at 0.01 ppm; Teosinte, straw at 0.01 ppm;
Triticale, forage at 0.01 ppm; Triticale, grain at 0.01 ppm; Triticale,
hay at 0.01 ppm; Triticale,

straw at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at
0.01 ppm; Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16, except spinach at
0.01 ppm; Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 0.01 ppm;
Vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10
at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except potato at 0.01
ppm; Vegetable, stalk, stem, and leaf petiole group 22 at 0.01 ppm;
Wheat, forage at 0.01 ppm; Wheat, grain at 0.01 ppm; Wheat, hay at 0.01
ppm; and Wheat, straw at 0.01 ppm. The ``AOAC Official Method 2007.1''
method, which uses LC-MS/MS, is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical picarbutrazox and its metabolites, TZ-1E, TZ-2-[beta]-Glc, TZ-
5, and TZ-5-Glc. Contact: RD.
    8. PP 1F8925. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0432). Valent U.S.A. LLC, 4600
Norris Canyon Road, P.O. Box 5075, San Ramon, CA 94583-0975, requests
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide Mandestrobin (2 RS)-2-{2-[(2,5-
dimethylphenoxy)methyl]phenyl{time} -2-methoxy-N-methylacetamide in or
on Rapeseed subgroup 20A, seed at 0.2 parts per million (ppm). An
independently validated analytical method with appropriate sensitivity
is used to measure and evaluate the chemical mandestrobin. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-17894 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA / SEHSC D4 ECA Meeting

Proposed Meeting Agenda

November 17, 2014

11:30 am- 1:30 pm EDT

11:30		Introductions / Meeting Goals					        K. Thomas / P. Lewis

11:35		Update on SEHSC Progress						               R. Mait

12:00		Feedback on SEHSC Submissions					             P. Lewis

12:30		ECA Next Steps							                      All

12:50		Collaborative Activities						                      All

1:15		Path Forward								                      All

1:30		Adjourn								             P. Lewis

•

2325 Dulles Corner Boulevard, Suite 500

Herndon, VA  20171

United States

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

www.globalsilicones.org


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47097-47102]
[DOCID:fr22au07-161]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 [Release No. 34-56275; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To List
and Trade Credit Default Basket Options, as Modified by Amendment No.
3, and Designating Credit Default Basket Options as Standardized
Options Under Rule 9b-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

August 17, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On April 5, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change, pursuant to section
19(b)(1) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to permit CBOE to list and trade cash-settled, binary
options \3\ based on the occurrence of credit events in the debt
securities of one or more issuers, referred to as credit default basket
options. On June 15, 2007, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change; on June 19, 2007, CBOE withdrew Amendment No. 1 and filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change; and on June 21, 2007, CBOE
withdrew Amendment No. 2 and filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 28, 2007 for
a 15-day comment period.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 3, and designates credit default basket options as
``standardized options'' pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A binary option is a style of option having only two
possible payoff outcomes: either a fixed amount or nothing at all.
    \4\ Amendment No. 3 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55938 (June 21,
2007), 72 FR 35523 (``CBOE Proposal'').
    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.9b-1. Pursuant to Rule 9b-1(a)(4) under the
Act, the Commission may, by order, designate as ``standardized
options'' securities that do not otherwise meet the definition of
``standardized options.'' Standardized options are defined in Rule
9b-1(a)(4) as: ``[O]ptions contracts trading on a national
securities exchange, an automated quotations system of a registered
securities association, or a foreign securities exchange which
relate to options classes the terms of which are limited to specific
expiration dates and exercise prices, or such other securities as
the Commission may, by order, designate.'' 17 CFR 240.9b-1(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the CBOE Proposal

A. Generally

    On June 6, 2007, the Commission approved a proposal by CBOE to list
and trade credit default options, which are cash-settled binary options
that are automatically exercised upon the occurrence of specified
credit events or expire worthless. \7\ CBOE now proposes to list and
trade credit default basket options, which are cash-settled binary
options based on a basket of at least two Reference Entities (described
below). This proposal would add new rules applicable to credit default
basket options and amend certain existing rules applicable to credit
default options to make them applicable to credit default basket
options.
    Credit default options are referenced to debt securities issued by
a specified public company (``Reference Entity'') \8\ and either have a
fixed payout or expire worthless, depending upon whether a credit event
occurs during the life of the option. Upon confirmation of a credit
event prior to the last day of trading of a credit default option
series,\9\ the options positions existing as of that time are
automatically exercised and the holders of long options positions
receive a fixed cash payment of $100,000 per contract.\10\ If no credit
event is confirmed during the life of the option, the final settlement
price is $0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55871, 72 FR 32372
(June 12, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-84) (approving CBOE's proposal to list
and trade credit default options) (``Credit Default Option Approval
Order''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55919 (June
18, 2007), 72 FR 34498 (June 22, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-62) (making
various technical changes to CBOE's credit default option rules).
    \8\ Proposed CBOE Rule 29.1(f) also includes as a ``Reference
Entity'' the guarantor of the debt security underlying the credit
default option. For purposes of credit default basket options,
Reference Entities are referred to as ``Basket Components.'' See
proposed CBOE Rule 29.1(h).
    \9\ CBOE Rule 29.9(c) (to be relettered CBOE Rule 29.9(d))
requires that CBOE confirm the occurrence of a credit event through
at least two sources, which may include announcements published via
newswire services or information service companies, the names of
which would be announced to the membership via a CBOE regulatory
circular, or information contained in any order, decree, or notice
of filing, however described, of or filed with the courts, the
Commission, an exchange, an association, the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC''), or another regulatory agency or similar
authority.
    \10\ However, the settlement amount could be adjusted pursuant
to proposed CBOE Rule 29.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Credit default basket options are like credit default options, but
instead of being based on the debt securities of one Reference Entity,
they are based on the debt securities of two or more Reference
Entities, or Basket Components. There would be two types of credit
default basket options: (i) Multiple payout credit default basket
options that automatically pay holders a cash settlement amount each
time a credit event is confirmed in a Basket Component during the life
of the option, after which the applicable Basket Component would be
removed from the basket, or expire worthless if no credit events are
confirmed during the life of the option; and (ii) single payout credit
default basket options that automatically pay holders a single cash
settlement amount when the first credit event is confirmed in any
Basket Component, or expire worthless if no credit event for any Basket
Component is confirmed during the life of the option.\11\ Unlike a
multiple payout credit default basket option, a single payout credit
default basket option ceases trading after confirmation of the first
credit event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Credit events that trigger an automatic pay out include a
failure to make payment pursuant to the terms of an underlying debt
security and any other event of default specified by CBOE at the
time it initially lists a particular class of credit default basket
options. For each Basket Component, the events of default that CBOE
may specify must be defined in accordance with the terms of the
specific debt security underlying the Basket Component (each a
``Reference Obligation'') or any other debt securities of the Basket
Component other than non-recourse indebtedness (collectively with
the Reference Obligation, ``Relevant Obligations''). See proposed
CBOE Rules 29.1(c) and 29.2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cash payout for credit default basket options is calculated
differently than for credit default options. For both types of credit
default basket options, each time a credit event is confirmed during
the life of the option, the holder of the option would receive a cash
payment per contract that is equal to one minus the Basket Component
recovery rate specified by the Exchange at listing, multiplied by the
notional face value of the applicable Basket Component.\12\ For
example, if there is a credit event in a Basket Component with notional
face value of $10,000 and a recovery rate of 40%, the cash payment per
contract would be $6,000.\13\ As with credit default options, if no
credit event is confirmed during the life of the option, the final
settlement price would be $0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ At the time of listing, the Exchange will designate the
notional face value and recovery rate of each Basket Component. See
proposed CBOE Rule 29.2A (setting forth the requirements for the
designation and terms of credit default basket options); and
proposed CBOE Rules 29.1(a)(ii) and (j) (setting forth the
definitions for ``cash settlement amount'' for credit default basket
options and ``Notional Face Value of Basket Component,''
respectively).
    \13\ $10,000 x (1 - 0.40) = $6,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Listing Standards

    Like credit default options, credit default basket options must
conform to the initial and continued listing standards under proposed
CBOE Chapter XXIX.\14\ CBOE is proposing to list and trade only credit
default basket options overlying debt securities of multiple Reference
Entities each having at least one class of securities that is
registered under the Act and is an ``NMS stock'' \15\ as defined in
Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act.\16\ Any registered equity
security issued by the Reference Entity also would have to satisfy the
requirements of CBOE Rule

5.4, which requires, among other things, that an equity security
underlying an option be itself widely held and actively traded.\17\
This requirement is designed to ensure that the issuer's securities
enjoy widespread investor interest. The requirement that each Reference
Entity be an issuer or guarantor of registered NMS stock will help
ensure that investors have access to comprehensive public information
about the Reference Entity, including the registration statement filed
under the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act'') and other
periodic reports.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CBOE is amending Chapter XXIX to make it applicable to all
``Credit Options,'' which would include credit default options and
credit default basket options.
    \15\ ``NMS stock'' means any security, or class of securities,
other than an option for which transaction reports are collected,
processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46) and (47).
    \16\ See proposed CBOE Rule 5.3.11.
    \17\ CBOE Rule 5.4 provides that, absent exceptional
circumstances, an underlying security will not be deemed to meet the
Exchange's requirements for continued approval when: (i) There are
fewer than 6,300,000 shares of the underlying security held by
persons other than those who are required to report their security
holdings under Section 16(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78p); (ii) there
are fewer than 1,600 holders of the underlying security; (iii) the
trading volume (in all markets in which the underlying security is
traded) was less than 1,800,000 shares in the preceding 12 months;
(iv) the market price per share of the underlying security closed
below $3 on the previous trading day, as measured by the closing
price reported in the primary market in which the underlying
security traded; or (v) the underlying security ceases to be an NMS
stock.
    \18\ Section 13 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78m, provides that any
issuer of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Act,
15 U.S.C. 78l, must file with the Commission annual reports and
information and documents necessary to keep reasonably current the
information in its Section 12 registration statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, as with credit default options, a credit default basket
option could not be exercised at the discretion of the investor, but
instead would have an automatic payout only upon the occurrence of a
credit event. The expiration date would be the fourth business day
after the last day of trading of the series, which would be the third
Friday of the expiration month.\19\ The Exchange usually would open one
to four series for each year up to 10.25 years from the current
expiration.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a single payout credit default basket option, if a
credit event is confirmed, the expiration date would be the second
business day after the confirmation of the first credit event. For a
multiple payout credit default basket option, if a credit event is
confirmed in every Basket Component, the expiration date would be
the second business day after the confirmation of the last credit
event. For either type of credit default basket options, if a
Redemption Event is confirmed in all Basket Components, the
expiration date would be the second business day after the last
confirmation date. See proposed CBOE Rules 29.1(d)(ii) and (e)(ii).
See also proposed CBOE Rule 29.4.
    \20\ See proposed CBOE Rule 29.2A(b)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Trading

    The trading rules for credit default basket options would be
consistent with those applicable to credit default options.
Specifically, credit default basket options would trade on CBOE's
Hybrid Trading System from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Central Time) \21\ in a
manner similar to the trading of equity options. With limited
distinctions, as described more fully in the proposal, CBOE's equity
option trading rules would apply to credit default options.\22\ Also,
credit default basket options would be eligible for trading as Flexible
Exchange Options (``FLEX Options''). A FLEX Option that is a credit
default basket option would be cash-settled and the exercise-by-
exception provisions of OCC Rule 805 \23\ would not apply. Market-
makers would be appointed to credit default options pursuant to CBOE's
existing requirements,\24\ as supplemented by proposed CBOE Rule 29.17.
Additionally, CBOE represents that it, and the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA''), have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
additional quote volume anticipated to be associated with credit
default basket options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed CBOE Rule 29.11.
    \22\ See proposed CBOE Rules 29.11-29.15, 29.16, and 29.19.
    \23\ OCC Rule 805 sets forth the expiration date exercise
procedures for options cleared and settled by the OCC.
    \24\ See Chapter VIII of CBOE's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a particular credit default basket option class has been
approved for listing and trading, the Exchange would, from time to
time, open for trading a series of that class. If a credit default
option class initially approved for trading no longer meets the
Exchange's requirements for continued approval, the Exchange would not
open for trading any additional series of options and, as provided in
CBOE Rule 5.4, could prohibit any opening purchase transactions in such
class. The proposed trading rules for credit default basket options are
designed to create an environment that takes into account the small
number of transactions likely to occur, while providing price
improvement and the transparency benefits of competitive floor bidding,
as compared to the over-the-counter (``OTC'') market.
    Upon the confirmation of the first credit event (in the case of a
single payout credit default basket option), a credit event in every
Basket Component (in the case of a multiple payout credit default
basket option), or the redemption of all Relevant Obligations (in the
case of either type of credit default basket option), the applicable
credit default basket option class would cease trading. In addition,
CBOE's trading halt procedures applicable to equity options would apply
to credit default basket options.\25\ When determining whether to
institute a trading halt in credit default basket options, CBOE floor
officials would consider whether current quotations for a Relevant
Obligation or other securities of a Reference Entity are unavailable or
have become unreliable.\26\ The Exchange's board of directors would
also have the power to impose restrictions on transactions or exercises
in one or more series of credit default basket options as the board, in
its judgment, determines advisable in the interests of maintaining a
fair and orderly market or otherwise deems advisable in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CBOE Rules 6.3 and 6.3B; proposed CBOE Rule 29.13.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See proposed CBOE Rule 29.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Clearance and Settlement

    Like credit default options, credit default basket options do not
have an exercise price, and thus by their terms, do not meet the
definition of ``standardized options'' for purposes of Rule 9b-1 under
the Act.\28\ However, as discussed herein, the Commission today is
using its authority pursuant to Rule 9b-1 to designate credit default
basket options as ``standardized options'' under Rule 9b-1.
Consequently, credit default basket option transactions will be
eligible for clearance and settlement by the OCC in accordance with
procedures that are substantially similar to existing systems and
procedures for the clearance and settlement of exchange-traded
options.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \29\ On April 20, 2007, the OCC filed with the Commission, a
proposed rule change to enable it to clear and settle credit default
basket options proposed to be listed by CBOE. On June 14, 2007, the
OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. The proposed rule change,
as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
June 27, 2007. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55939 (June 21,
2007), 72 FR 35291 (SR-OCC-2007-06) (the ``OCC Proposal''). The
Commission has not yet taken action on the OCC proposal. The
Commission also notes that the Options Disclosure Document (``ODD'')
was recently amended to incorporate disclosure related to both
credit default options and credit default basket options. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55921 (June 18, 2007), 72 FR
34495 (June 22, 2007) (SR-ODD-2007-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Adjustments

    Like credit default options, both types of credit default basket
options would be subject to adjustments in two circumstances.\30\
First, if a Basket Component is succeeded by another entity in
accordance with the terms of the underlying debt securities, the
Exchange will specify a new recovery

rate and basket weight for each successor Basket Component. The newly
specified weights would equal the weight of the original Basket
Component. To the extent necessary and appropriate for the protection
of investors and the public interest, all other terms and conditions of
the options would be the same as the original credit default basket
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See CBOE proposed Rule 29.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, if the Reference Obligation of a Basket Component is
redeemed or matures during the life of the credit default basket
option, the Exchange would specify another debt security of the
Reference Entity as the new Reference Obligation for that Basket
Component. If all debt securities of a Basket Component (i.e., all
Relevant Obligations) are redeemed during the life of the credit
default basket option, that Basket Component would be removed from the
basket.

F. Position Limits

    Pursuant to proposed CBOE Rule 29.5, credit default basket options
would be subject to a position limit equal to 50,000 contracts on the
same side of the market. Credit default basket options would not be
aggregated with option contracts on the same underlying security and
would not be subject to the hedge exemption to CBOE's standard position
limits. Instead, the following hedge strategies and positions would be
exempt from CBOE's position limits: (i) A credit default basket option
position ``hedged'' or ``covered'' by an appropriate amount of cash to
meet the cash settlement amount obligation; and (ii) a credit default
basket option position ``hedged'' or ``covered'' by an amount of any of
the Basket Component's debt securities, instruments, or interests
sufficient to meet: (A) In the case of a single payout credit default
option, the cash settlement amount obligation that would be the
greatest if any of the Basket Components of that option were to
experience a credit event; or (B) in the case of a multiple payout
credit default option, the sum of the sum of each Basket Component's
cash settlement amount.\31\ Also, CBOE's market-maker and firm
facilitation exemptions to position limits would apply.\32 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed CBOE Rule 29.5.
    \32\ Proposed CBOE Rule 29.5 would require that for purposes of
its market-maker hedge exemption (CBOE Rule 4.11.05) the position
must be within 20% of the applicable limit before an exemption would
be granted. With respect to CBOE's firm facilitation exemption (CBOE
Rule 4.11.06), proposed CBOE Rule 29.5 would provide that the
aggregate exemption position could not exceed three times the
standard limit of 50,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Margin

    The margin (both initial and maintenance) required for writing
short and long positions in credit default basket options would be as
follows:
     For a qualified customer carrying a long position in a
credit default basket option, the margin requirement would be 15% of
the current market value of the credit default basket option.
     For a non-qualified customer carrying a long position in a
credit default basket option, the margin requirement would be 100% of
the current market value of the credit default basket option.
     For a qualified customer carrying a short position in a
multiple payout credit default basket option, the margin requirement
would be the lesser of the current market value of the credit default
basket option plus 15% of the sum of each Basket Component's cash
settlement amount, or the sum of each Basket Component's cash
settlement amount.
     For a non-qualified customer carrying a short position in
a multiple payout credit default basket option, the margin requirement
would be the sum of each Basket Component's cash settlement amount.
     For a qualified customer carrying a short position in a
single payout credit default basket option, the margin requirement
would be the lesser of the current market value of the credit default
basket option plus 15% of the cash settlement amount of the Basket
Component that would be the greatest if any of the Basket Components
were to experience a credit event, or the cash settlement amount of the
Basket Component that would be the greatest if any of the Basket
Components were to experience a credit event.
     For a non-qualified customer carrying a short position in
a single payout credit default basket option, the margin requirement
would be the cash settlement amount of the Basket Component that would
be the greatest if any of the Basket Components were to experience a
credit event.
    These requirements may be satisfied by a deposit of cash or
marginable securities.
    A credit default option carried short in a customer's account would
be deemed a covered position, and eligible for the cash account,
provided any one of the following is held in the account at the time
the option is written or is received into the account promptly
thereafter: (i) For multiple payout credit default basket options, cash
or cash equivalents equal to 100% of the sum of each Basket Component's
cash settlement amount; (ii) for single payout credit default basket
options, cash or cash equivalents equal to 100% of the cash settlement
amount of the Basket Component that would be the greatest if any of the
Basket Components were to experience a credit event; or (iii) an escrow
agreement. The Exchange believes that these requirements strike the
appropriate balance and adequately address concerns that a member or
its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged
position in credit default options. The Exchange represents that, in
accordance with proposed CBOE Rule 12.3(a)(4), an escrow agreement must
be issued in a form acceptable to the Exchange, and that it has
traditionally recognized as acceptable the escrow agreement forms of
the OCC and the New York Stock Exchange.
    Lastly, pursuant to proposed CBOE Rule 12.5, a credit default
basket option that is carried for the account of a qualified customer
may be deemed to have market value for the purposes of CBOE Rule
12.3(c).

H. Surveillance

    The Exchange has represented that it will have in place adequate
surveillance procedures to monitor trading in credit default basket
options prior to listing and trading such options.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\33\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\34\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, 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. CBOE's proposal, by enabling it to list and trade
securities heretofore existing only in the OTC market, would extend to
investors the benefits of a listed exchange market,

which include: a centralized market center; an auction market with
posted, transparent market quotations and transaction reporting;
standardized contract specifications; and the guarantee of the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with its earlier approval of credit default options,
the Commission found that the credit default options proposed by CBOE
are securities because they are options based on the value of a
security or securities and because they are options on an interest in,
or based on the value of an interest in, a security or securities.\35\
Under an analysis similar to that applied to credit default options,
and after careful consideration of the terms of the two types of credit
default basket options, the Commission finds that the credit default
basket options proposed by CBOE are securities. Specifically, the
Commission finds that credit default basket options are options based
on the value of securities or a group or index of securities and are
options on an interest in or based on the value of an interest in,
securities or a group or index of securities and, therefore, are
securities under section 3(a)(10) of the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Credit Default Option Approval Order, supra note 7.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a threshold matter, the Commission finds that credit default
basket options are options, not futures contracts. Generally speaking
an option grants the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy
or sell a specific quantity, at a specific price, on or before a
specified future date.\37\ Courts have highlighted three
characteristics in particular that distinguish options from futures
contracts: (i) An options-buyer pays to the seller a nonrefundable
premium; (ii) an options-buyer has rights but no further obligations
under the contract; and (iii) an options-seller bears all the risk
exposure.\38\ Examining credit default basket options in light of these
characteristics, it is clear that credit default basket options are
options. First, the buyer of a credit default basket option pays to the
seller a nonrefundable premium. Second, the buyer of a credit default
basket option has rights but no further obligations under the contract.
Third, the buyer of a credit default basket option has no further risk
exposure under the contract and the seller bears all the risk of the
credit event occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See British American Commodity Options v. Bagley, 552 F.2d
482, 484-85 (2d Cir. 1977).
    \38\ See CFTC v. U.S. Metals Depository Co., 468 F.Supp. 1149,
1154 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); and United States v. Bein, 728 F.2d 107, 112
(2d Cir. 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although credit default basket options differ from classic options
in certain respects, these differences do not affect the economic
substance of the contract. First, credit default basket options are
cash-settled and do not allow for physical delivery. It is well
established, however, that cash-settled options based on prices of
securities are options ``on'' such securities.\39\ Second, credit
default basket options are automatically exercised, unlike a classic
option that generally gives the option-holder the right but not the
obligation to exercise if the option is in the money. In the case of
cash-settled options, such as credit default basket options, however,
giving the option-holder the right to decline to accept the cash upon
the occurrence of an event of default would be economically
meaningless.\40\ For this reason, under OCC rules, index option
contracts are automatically exercised if they are in-the-money at
expiration, and equity options contracts are automatically exercised if
they are in-the-money by specified amounts. Third, the payout for a
credit default basket option is fixed in advance and binary in nature,
while in a classic option the payout can increase or decrease
continuously in direct correlation with the price movement of the
underlying instrument. The same is true, of course, of the payout of a
futures contract. Thus, the fixed payout of credit default basket
options does not weigh in favor of classifying them as either futures
or options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York, 295 F.3d 312, 326
(2d Cir. 2002).
    \40\ See Stechler v. Sidley, Austin Brown & Wood, L.L.P., 382
F.Supp.2d 580, 595-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, even though the potential payout of a credit default
basket option is cash-settled, automatically exercised, and fixed in
advance, the buyer of a credit default basket option still pays a fixed
premium for the possibility of receiving a greater amount--which is the
essence of optionality.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Brief of Amicus Curiae The Securities and Exchange
Commission, at 24, Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York, 295 F.3d 312
(2d Cir. 2002) (01-7545) (``Simply put, Caiola paid a little for the
chance to get a lot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission finds that credit default basket
options are securities under section 3(a)(10) of the Act.\42\
Specifically, credit default basket options are options based on the
value of securities or a group or index of securities and are options
on an interest in, or based on the value of an interest in, securities
or a group or index of securities. In coming to these conclusions, the
Commission carefully considered the terms of the credit default basket
options, using an analytical approach similar to that which the
Commission applied to credit default options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Commission wishes to make clear that because credit
default basket options will be exchange-traded and not individually
negotiated (and not necessarily between eligible contract
participants), they are not qualifying swap agreements under Section
206A of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (``GLBA''), 15 U.S.C. 78c note,
and, therefore, not excluded from the definition of security by
Section 3A of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c-1. Also, certain OTC credit
default swaps (whether single-name or basket) are not securities.
The finding that credit default basket options are securities
because they are options based on the value of securities or a group
or index of securities might suggest that single-name or basket OTC
credit default swaps are also options based on the value of a
security or group or index of securities and, therefore, excluded
from the definition of swap agreement because Section 206A(b)(1) of
the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 78c note, excludes from the definition of swap
agreement ``any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any
security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities,
including any interest therein or based on the value thereof.''
However, Congress specifically enumerated ``credit default swaps''
(without defining the term) as one example of a qualifying swap
agreement. See Section 206A(a)(3) of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 78c note.
The Commission views the specific enumeration of ``credit default
swaps'' as reflecting the intention of Congress to exclude certain
OTC credit default swaps from the definition of security pursuant to
Sections 206B & C of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 78c note. Of course, OTC
credit default swaps that involve terms similar to credit default
basket options, but that are otherwise excluded from the definition
of security because they are qualifying swap agreements, remain
subject to the Commission's antifraud jurisdiction (including
authority over insider trading) as ``security-based swap
agreements'' under Section 206B of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 78c note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the listing and trading rules
proposed by CBOE for credit default basket options are substantially
similar to the listing and trading rules for credit default options,
and are likewise reasonable and consistent with the Act. As with a
credit default option, a credit default basket option must be based on
Reference Obligations issued by entities that issue or guarantee
registered equity securities that are NMS stocks and that meet the
Exchange's standards for listing an equity option. These requirements
are reasonably designed to facilitate investors' access to information
about the Reference Entities that may be necessary to price a credit
default basket option appropriately.
    The Commission believes that the proposed position limits and
margin rules for credit default basket options are reasonable and
consistent with the Act. The proposed position limit of 50,000
contracts in any credit default basket option class appears to
reasonably balance the promotion of a free and open market for these
securities with minimization of incentives for market manipulation and
insider trading. The proposed margin rules

appear reasonably designed to deter a member or its customer from
assuming an imprudent position in credit default options.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange made the following
representations:
     The Exchange will have in place adequate surveillance
procedures to monitor trading in credit default basket options prior to
listing and trading such options, thereby helping to ensure the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market for trading in credit default
options.
     The Exchange and the OPRA will have the necessary systems
capacity to accommodate the additional volume associated with credit
default basket options as proposed.
    This approval order is based on CBOE's representations.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule is consistent with the Act.

IV. Designation of Credit Default Basket Options Pursuant to Rule 9b-1

    Rule 9b-1 establishes a disclosure framework for standardized
options that are traded on a national securities exchange and cleared
through a registered clearing agency. Under this framework, the
exchange on which a standardized option is listed and traded must
prepare an ODD that, among other things, identifies the issuer and
describes the uses, mechanics, and risks of options trading, in
language that can be easily understood by the general investing public.
The ODD is treated as a substitute for the traditional prospectus. A
broker-dealer must provide a copy of the ODD to each customer at or
before approving of the customer's account for trading any standardized
option.\43\ Any amendment to the ODD must be distributed to each
customer whose account is approved for trading the options class for
which the ODD relates.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 17 CFR 240.9b-1(d)(1).
    \44\ See 17 CFR 240.9b-1(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 9b-1, use of the ODD is limited to ``standardized
options'' for which there is an effective registration statement on
Form S-20 under the Securities Act or that are exempt from
registration.\45\ The Commission specifically reserved in Rule 9b-1 the
ability to designate as standardized options other securities ``that
the Commission believes should be included within the options
disclosure framework.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(1) and (c)(8). See also 17 CFR
230.238. Rule 238 under the Securities Act provides an exemption
from the Securities Act for any standardized option, as defined by
Rule 9b-1(a)(4) under the Act, with limited exceptions. Rule 238
does not exempt standardized options from the antifraud provisions
of Section 17 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q. Also, offers and
sales of standardized options by or on behalf of the issuer of the
underlying security or securities, an affiliate of the issuer, or an
underwriter, will constitute an offer or sale of the underlying
security or securities as defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(3). See also Securities Act Release
No. 8171 (December 23, 2002), 68 FR 188 (January 2, 2003) (Exemption
for Standardized Options From Provisions of the Securities Act of
1933 and From Registration Requirements of the Exchange Act of
1934).
    \46\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19055 and
Securities Act Release No. 6426 (September 16, 1982), 47 FR 41950,
41954 (September 23, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby designates credit default basket options, as
defined in the OCC Proposal,\47\ as standardized options for purposes
of Rule 9b-1 under the Act. Like credit default options, credit default
basket options do not meet the definition of ``standardized options,''
because they do not have an exercise price.\48\ However, they resemble
standardized options in other significant respects. Credit default
basket options have underlying securities and an expiration date. Like
other standardized options, credit default basket options have
standardized terms relating to exercise procedures, contract
adjustments, time of issuance, effect of closing transactions,
restrictions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and
obligations of holders and writers. Further, credit default basket
options are designed to provide market participants with the ability to
hedge their exposure to underlying securities. The fact that credit
default basket options lack a specified exercise price does not detract
from this option-like benefit. The Commission believes that the fact
that the OCC, the clearing agency for all standardized options, is
willing to serve as issuer of credit default basket options supports
the view that adding credit default basket options to the standardized
option disclosure framework is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ For purposes of its proposal, OCC would define the term
``credit default basket option'' as an option that is based on a
basket comprised of at least two reference entities and that is
either a ``multiple payout credit default basket option'' or a
``single payout credit default basket option.'' A ``multiple payout
credit default basket option'' would mean a credit default basket
option that automatically pays an exercise settlement amount each
time a credit event is confirmed with respect to any one of the
reference entities prior to expiration of the option. A ``single
payout credit default basket option'' would be automatically
exercised and pay a single exercise settlement amount only when the
first credit event is confirmed with respect to a reference entity
prior to expiration of the option. See proposed Section 1.C.(2) of
Article XIV of the OCC By-Laws.
    ``Credit event'' would be as defined in the rules of the
exchange on which the credit default basket options are listed, with
respect to a reference obligation for such option. See proposed
Section 1.C.(3) of Article XIV of the OCC By-Laws.
    ``Reference entity'' would mean any one of the issuers or
guarantors of the reference obligation(s) that underlie a credit
default basket option. See proposed Section 1.R.(1) of Article XIV
of the OCC By-Laws.
    ``Reference obligation'' would mean any debt security the terms
of which are used to define the occurrence of a credit event with
respect to the reference entity that is its issuer or guarantor for
a class of credit default basket options, as provided in the rules
of the listing exchange. See id.
    \48\ See Credit Default Options Approval Order at Section VI
(designating credit default options as standardized options for
purposes of Rule 9b-1 under the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission hereby designates credit default basket
options, such as those proposed by CBOE, as standardized options for
purposes of Rule 9b-1 under the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\49\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-26), as modified
by Amendment No. 3, be and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 9b-1(a)(4) under the Act,
that credit default basket options, as defined in proposed rule change
SR-OCC-2007-06, are designated as standardized options.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16587 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81573-81576]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32647]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76731; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-144]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 5810(4),
5810(c), 5815(c) and 5820(d) To Provide Staff With Limited Discretion
To Grant a Listed Company That Failed To Hold Its Annual Meeting of
Shareholders an Extension of Time To Comply With the Requirement

December 22, 2015.
    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 December 9, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' 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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend Rule 5810(c) to provide NASDAQ staff with
limited discretion to grant a listed company additional time to solicit
proxies and hold an annual meeting of shareholders. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Each company listing common stock or voting preferred stock, and
their equivalents, must hold an annual meeting of shareholders no later
than one year after the end of the company's fiscal year and solicit
proxies for that meeting.\3\ An annual meeting allows the equity owners
of the company the opportunity to elect directors and meet with
management to discuss company affairs. Currently, should a company fail
to hold its annual meeting as required by Rule 5620, staff of the
Listing Qualifications Department (``Staff'') has no discretion to
allow additional time for the company to regain compliance. Rather,
Staff is required by Rule 5810(c)(1) to issue a delisting
determination, subjecting the company to immediate suspension and
delisting unless the company appeals to a Hearings Panel.\4\ NASDAQ
proposes to amend Rule 5810(4), 5810(c), 5815(c) and 5820(d) to provide
Staff with limited discretion to grant a listed company that failed to
hold its annual meeting of shareholders an extension of time to comply
with the requirement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rules 5620(a) and (b), respectively. Rule 5615(a)(4)(D)
also requires a limited partnership to hold an annual meeting of
limited partners if required by statute or regulation in the state
in which the limited partnership is formed or doing business or by
the terms of the partnership's limited partnership agreement. Rule
5615(a)(4)(F) requires the limited partnership to distribute
information statements or proxies when a meeting of limited partners
is required. The proposed process described herein would apply in
the identical manner to limited partnerships required to hold a
meeting as it does to other companies. See also Rules 5615(a)(4)(E)
and (F) (partner meetings and proxy solicitation of limited
partnerships).
    \4\ A listed company may request review of a Staff Delisting
Determination by a Hearings Panel. A timely request for a hearing
will stay the suspension and delisting pending the issuance of a
written Panel Decision. See Rule 5815.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that companies and certain limited
partnerships are also required to solicit proxies and provide proxy
statements for all meetings of shareholders or partners. See Rules
5620(b) and 5615(a)(4)(F), respectively. A company or limited
partnership that has not timely held an annual meeting has not
violated the proxy solicitation rule because no meeting has been
held.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ notes that the only other rule where a company is subject to
immediate suspension and delisting, besides when it fails to solicit
proxies and hold an annual meeting, is when Staff makes a determination
pursuant to the Rule 5100 Series that the company's continued listing
raises a public interest concern. This determination generally is made
only following discussion and review of the facts and circumstances
with the company. For all other deficiencies under the Rule 5000
Series, a listed company is provided with either a fixed compliance
period within which to regain compliance,\6\ or given the opportunity
to submit a plan to regain compliance, which Staff reviews to determine
whether to grant the company a limited time to implement.\7\ Generally,
a company is allowed 45 days to submit the plan of compliance \8\ and,
upon review of the plan, Staff may grant the company up to 180 days
from the date of Staff's initial notification of the company's non-
compliance to regain compliance. If upon review of the company's plan
Staff determines that an extension is not warranted, Staff will issue a
Delisting Determination, which triggers the company's right to request
review by a Hearings Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 5810(c)(3).
    \7\ See Rule 5810(c)(2).
    \8\ Companies deficient with the filing requirement for periodic
reports are provided up to 60 days to submit a plan of compliance.
See Rule 5810(c)(2)(F). Staff can shorten these deadlines where
deemed appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a variety of reasons a company may fail to timely hold an
annual meeting. In many of these cases, the circumstances that
precipitated the delay may arise just before a planned meeting. For
example, NASDAQ has

observed cases where a company has attempted to hold an annual meeting
before the deadline, but was required to adjourn and reschedule the
meeting to allow its shareholders more time to review proxy materials
in connection with a shareholder proxy contest. NASDAQ has also
encountered companies that could not hold an annual meeting because
they were delinquent in filing periodic reports and therefore could not
include required financial information in a proxy statement. In that
case, under the current rules, the company could receive an extension
of the time to regain compliance with the filing requirement. However,
if during any such compliance period the company subsequently fails to
hold an annual meeting of shareholders for any reason, Staff would
issue a delist determination at that time for both the filing
delinquency and the annual meeting deficiency, notwithstanding that the
compliance period for the filing delinquency has not expired.\9\. [sic]
Under these circumstances, as required by the Listing Rules, Staff will
notify the company in writing of the annual meeting deficiency \10\ and
the company must publicly disclose such notification.\11\ The
deficiency will then be considered at the same time and together with
the filing delinquency in any subsequent delisting proceeding.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 5810(c)(2)(A).
    \10\ See Rule 5810(a).
    \11\ See Rule 5810(b).
    \12\ See Rule 5810(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rules 5810(c),
5815(c) and 5820(d) to afford those companies and limited partnerships
that fail to hold an annual meeting in accordance with the listing
rules an opportunity to submit a plan of compliance for Staff's
review.\13\ Accordingly, we are also proposing to modify Rule 5810(4)
to make clear that a Public Reprimand Letter is not an available
notification type for unresolved deficiencies from the standards of
Rules 5250(c) (obligation to file periodic financial reports),
5615(a)(4)(D) (partner meetings of limited partnerships), and 5620(a)
(meetings of shareholders). Under proposed Rule 5810(c)(2)(G), Staff's
written deficiency notice shall provide the Company with 45 calendar
days to submit a plan to regain compliance. A non-compliant company
will have to publicly disclose, under both Commission and NASDAQ rules,
that it has received notification of non-compliance with the annual
meeting rule.\14\ In addition, we are proposing to modify Rule
5810(c)(2)(B) to make clear that annual meeting deficiencies are
governed by proposed Rule 5810(c)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted above, the company or limited partnership
generally would have 45 days to submit a plan to regain compliance,
although Staff could shorten that period where it believes
appropriate.
    \14\ See Rule 5810(b) and IM-5810-1. See also Item 3.01 of SEC
Form 8-K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether to grant the Company an extension to comply
with the annual meeting requirement, Staff will consider the likelihood
that the Company would be able to hold an annual meeting within the
exception period, the Company's past compliance history, the reasons
for the failure to timely hold an annual meeting, corporate events that
may occur within the exception period, the Company's general financial
status, and the Company's disclosures to the market. This review will
be based on information provided by a variety of sources, which may
include the Company, its audit committee, its outside auditors, the
staff of the SEC and any other regulatory body. The proposed rule
change will limit the length of an extension granted by Staff, upon
review of the plan, to no more than 180 calendar days from the deadline
to hold the annual meeting (i.e., one year after the end of the
Company's fiscal year).\15\ The proposed rule change will also limit
the maximum length of an extension that a NASDAQ Hearings Panel or the
NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council \16\ may grant for such a
deficiency to no more than 360 calendar days from the date of non-
compliance with the rule. In doing so, the total time that a company
may be granted to regain compliance with the annual meeting requirement
is unchanged from the existing rule.\17\ The proposed rule change
merely vests Staff with the limited discretion to grant an extension to
regain compliance for a prescribed portion of this time. NASDAQ
believes that the proposed rule change provides consistency with the
administration of other continued listing standards where companies are
provided a cure period or opportunity to submit a plan to regain
compliance after they become deficient, without undermining the
requirement that NASDAQ-listed companies hold annual meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NASDAQ has observed that a substantial majority of
companies that received delisting notices for failing to solicit
proxies and hold their annual meetings regain compliance within a
six month period.
    \16\ The Hearings Panel reviews staff delisting determinations
and the Listing and Hearing Review Council reviews Panel Decisions.
    \17\ Under the current rule, the 360 calendar day limit on
extensions starts on the date of Staff's written notification to a
company of the deficiency, which is typically the first business day
of a calendar year for companies with calendar year fiscal years.
Under the proposed rule, the 360 calendar day period would start on
the deadline to hold the annual meeting, which is one year after the
end of a company's fiscal year. Thus, while the proposal does not
change the total length of an extension a company may be granted,
the starting date for an extension period under the proposed rule
would be a day or two earlier than under the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, in accordance with Rule 5810(c)(2) a company or limited
partnership not subject to the all-inclusive annual fee program that
submits such a plan is subject to the $5,000 compliance plan review
fee. Effective January 2018, all companies will be subject to the all-
inclusive annual fee program and this fee will no longer be applicable
to any company. Further, all companies, regardless of whether they
participate in the all-inclusive annual fee program or not, are subject
to the $10,000 fee for each of a Panel hearing and appeal to the
Listing and Hearing Review Council set forth in Listing Rules
5815(a)(3) and 5820(a), respectively. Accordingly, under the proposed
rule as compared to the current rule, companies and limited
partnerships may be subject to these fees at different times, if at
all, depending on whether and when they regain compliance.
Notwithstanding, a company that elects not to participate in the all-
inclusive annual fee program prior to January 2018 will incur the
$5,000 compliance plan review fee whereas a company that has opted-in
to the all-inclusive fee will not. This fee would be in addition to any
fees incurred in the appellate process.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that
they provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and 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; and are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed changes are consistent with these
requirements because they permit Staff to grant additional time to a
company to comply with the annual meeting requirement in limited
situations after Staff review of a compliance plan. The proposed
changes, however, do not change the total length of an extension a
company may be granted--as is the case under the current rule, such
maximum time period would remain 360 calendar days. Furthermore, as is
the case under the current rule, a company notified that it is
deficient in the annual meeting requirement is required to publicly
disclose such notice and the rules basis for it. NASDAQ also separately
publicly discloses a list of noncompliant companies and the listing
standards with which they do not comply. For these reasons, the
proposed rule protects investors and the public interest.
    As noted above, there are various reasons why a company may not be
able to hold an annual meeting and for which immediate delisting is an
inappropriate outcome under the circumstances. In lieu of the current
requirement that Staff send an immediate Delisting Determination, the
proposal vests Staff with discretion to determine whether the reason
for the deficiency and the plan to regain compliance merit an
extension. The Rules allow Staff such discretion for other
deficiencies, and the only case where Staff sends an immediate
Delisting Determination is where Staff has concluded, after review of
the facts and circumstances, that continued listing is contrary to the
public interest. NASDAQ believes that it is consistent with the Act to
provide Staff with discretion to grant an extension for an annual
meeting deficiency based on a plan of compliance, consistent with the
process currently used for the majority of deficiencies under NASDAQ's
rules. The Exchange is not extending the total time that a company may
remain listed on NASDAQ while deficient; rather, the proposed rule
change will allow Staff limited discretion to grant an extension to
regain compliance with the listing standard for a prescribed portion of
this time, which, to the extent exercised, will limit the length of
time a Hearings Panel and Listing and Hearing Review Council may
subsequently grant. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
proposal promotes the requirements of the Act by providing Staff with
limited discretion to allow additional time where the circumstances do
not support immediate delisting, while maintaining Staff's authority to
delist a company when warranted.
    The Exchange also believes that assessing the $5,000 compliance
plan review fee on companies that have not opted-in to the all-
inclusive annual fee program prior to January 2018 is reasonable
because NASDAQ is changing the process in an effort to make it more
consistent with how other deficiencies are handled. The Exchange notes
that companies that do not resolve their annual meeting deficiencies
during an extension period provided by Staff under the proposed changes
may subsequently be subject to the $10,000 fee for each of a Panel
Hearing and an appeal to the Listing and Hearing Review Council.
However, because most companies resolve annual meeting deficiencies
within six months, under the proposed rules, they would likely not
incur these fees. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is equitably allocated because the fees assessed to companies as
a result of the changes will be allocated uniformly among similarly-
situated companies. Moreover, the Exchange believes that assessing
different fees between companies that opt-in to the all-inclusive
annual fee program and those that do not is an equitable allocation
because participation in the program is elective and available to all
listed companies. As a consequence, companies are able to weigh the
benefits of the program against the relative risk of incurring
additional fees and choose whether opting-in to the program at this
juncture is appropriate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change will not burden competition as it provides
discretion to Staff to provide a limited time to regain compliance when
immediate delisting is not warranted, thereby potentially reducing the
time and costs associated with appealing a delisting determination.
Moreover, the proposed rule change is intended to promote consistent
and fair regulation, and is not being adopted for competitive purposes.
To the extent a competitor marketplace believes that the proposed rule
change places them at a competitive disadvantage, it may file with the
Commission a proposed rule change to adopt the same or similar rule.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-144 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-144. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-144, and should
be submitted on or before January 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32647 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:	Monday, August 09, 2010 9:50 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:	engine cost info
Attachments:	EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National
Impacts.pdf

Cortney, one of the items requested on the call today was information on
engine costs.  See the far right column in Table 5 of the attached national
impacts memo.  The information is a little old but gives you a ballpark idea.
Also attached is another reference we have.
(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf)(See attached file:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National Impacts.pdf)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8126]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather
Detection Systems Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather
Detection Systems Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
third meeting of the Airborne Weather Detection Systems Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 17-19 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m. on March 17-18 and 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. on March 19.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 230. The agenda will
include the following:

March 17

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 Meeting #2 Minutes approval
 Discussion of activities with EUROCAE WG-95
 Discussion of draft modification of SC-230 Terms of Reference
to include modification to DO-213
 Review of General Requirements sections
 Review of PWS sections

March 18

 Review of Turbulence sections
 Review of Test Procedures sections
 Review of Test Procedures sections
 Review of Operational and Installed sections

March 19

 Review of Atmospheric Threat sections
 Discuss scope and content of DO-213 working group
 Action Item Review
 Other Actions
 FRAC Process Presentation
 Date and Place of Next Meetings
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03057 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11604]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-52-000, et al.]

Cadillac Renewable Energy, LLC, et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Filings

March 2, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Cadillac Renewable Energy LLC; NRG Cadillac, Inc.; Seville Energy
LLC

[Docket No. EC06-52-001]

    Take notice that on February 22, 2006, Cadillac Renewable Energy
LLC, NRG Cadillac, Inc. and Seville Energy LLC (Applicants) submitted
an Amendment to the Application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal
Power Act for authorization of disposition of jurisdictional
facilities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2006.

2. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Seller of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Investigation
of Practices of the California Independent System Operator Corporation
and the California Power Exchange

[Docket Nos. EL00-95-173 and EL00-98-159]

    Take notice that on February 10, 2006, TransAlta Energy Marketing
(US) Inc. filed a revised Cost Recovery Analysis with supporting
information in compliance with the Commission's Order issued January
26, 2006, in Ordering Paragraph D.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2006.

3. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Seller of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Investigation
of Practices of the California Independent System Operator Corporation
and the California Power Exchange

[Docket Nos. EL00-95-176 and EL00-98-162]

    Take notice that on February 10, 2006, Sempra Energy Trading Corp.
filed a Cost Recovery Analysis in compliance with the Commission's
Order issued January 26, 2006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2006.

4. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Seller of Energy and Ancillary
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System
Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Investigation
of Practices of the California Independent System Operator Corporation
and the California Power Exchange

[Docket No. EL00-95-177 and EL00-98-163]

    Take notice that on February 10, 2006, Avista Energy, Inc. filed a
Cost Recovery Analysis in compliance with the Commission's Order issued
January 26, 2006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2006.

5. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. ER06-310-001]

    Take notice that on February 21, 2006, the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing response to questions
posed by a deficiency letter order on January 27, 2006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 9, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3275 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P