[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9517-9518]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0007; FRL-9973-26]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in
the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703)
305-7090, email address: [email protected]; or Michael Goodis,
Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address: [email protected]. 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 application 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.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications.
    1. EPA: 100-RAGL. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653.
Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. Product name: Vayantis Seed Treatment. Active Ingredient:
Fungicide-Picarbutrazox at 36%. Proposed Uses: Corn and soybean.
Contact: RD.
    2. EPA: 8033-RGA. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653.
Applicant: Nippon Soda Co., Ltd c/o Nisso America Inc., 88 Pine Street,
14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Product name: Picarbutrazox 10 SC.
Active Ingredient: Fungicide-Picarbutrazox at 9.5%. Proposed Uses:
Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) and leafy greens (Crop Sub-group 4-
16A). Contact: RD.
    3. EPA: 8033-RGI. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653.
Applicant: Nippon Soda Co., Ltd c/o Nisso America Inc., 88 Pine Street,
14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Product name: Picarbutrazox 20 WG.
Active Ingredient: Fungicide-Picarbutrazox at 20%. Proposed Uses: Turf.
Contact: RD.
    4. EPA: 8033-RGT. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653.
Applicant: Nippon Soda Co., Ltd c/o Nisso America Inc., 88 Pine Street,
14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. Product name: Picarbutrazox Technical.
Active Ingredient: Fungicide-Picarbutrazox at 97.5%. Proposed Uses:
Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9), leafy greens

(Crop Sub-group 4-16A), turf, corn, and soybean. Contact: RD.
    File Symbols: 279-GAGR and 279-GAGN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0417. Applicant: FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Product names: Valifenalate Technical and
F9177-2 WG. Active ingredient: Fungicide and Valifenalate at 98.4%
(Valifenalate Technical) and 10% (F9177-2 WG). Proposed Uses:
Classification/Use Bulb vegetable crop group 3-07, cucurbit vegetable
crop group 9, fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10, celery, tomato-wet
peel, and potatoes. Contact: RD.
    File Symbol: 67986-I. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0707.
Applicant: OmniLytics, Inc., 9100 South 500 West, Sandy, UT 84070.
Product name: AgriPhage-Fire Blight. Active ingredient: Bactericide--
Bacteriophage active against Erwinia amylovora at 0.0001%. Proposed
use: To be used on apples and pears for the control of fire blight
caused by the bacterium Erwinia amylovora. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-A. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0725.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: Clonostachys rosea strain
88-710 TGAI. Active ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain
88-710 at 100%. Proposed use: For manufacturing of pesticide products
containing Clonostachys rosea strain 88-170. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-G. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0724.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API EP#4. Active
ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941 at 95.00%.
Proposed use: Seed treatment. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-I. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0725.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API EP#2. Active
ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain 88-710 at 95.00%.
Proposed use: Field, greenhouse, turf/lawn, forestry, and residential.
Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-O. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0724.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API EP#5. Active
ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941 at 95.00%.
Proposed use: Field, greenhouse, turf/lawn, forestry, and residential.
Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0724.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: Clonostachys rosea strain
ACM941 TGAI. Active ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain
ACM941 at 100%. Proposed use: For manufacturing of pesticide products
containing Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-RN. Docket ID numbers: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0724 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0725. Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division
Rd. North, Kingsville, Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences
Group Inc., 712 Fifth St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API
EP#7. Active ingredients: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain 88-710
and Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941 at 47.50% and 47.50%,
respectively. Proposed use: Field, greenhouse, turf/lawn, forestry, and
residential. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-T. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0725.
Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division Rd. North, Kingsville,
Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group Inc., 712 Fifth
St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API EP#1. Active
ingredient: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain 88-710 at 95.00%.
Proposed use: Seed treatment. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89017-U. Docket ID numbers: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0724 and
EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0725. Applicant: Adjuvants Plus, Inc., 1755 Division
Rd. North, Kingsville, Ontario N9Y 2Y8, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences
Group Inc., 712 Fifth St., Suite A, Davis, CA 95616). Product name: API
EP#6. Active ingredients: Fungicide--Clonostachys rosea strain 88-710
and Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941 at 47.50% and 47.50%,
respectively. Proposed use: Seed treatment. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 89635-U. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0706.
Applicant: Koppert Biological Systems, Inc., 1502 Old US 23, Howell, MI
48843. Product name: KM1110 WDG. Active ingredient: Fungicide--
Metschnikowia fructicola strain NRRL Y-27328 at 58.5%. Proposed use:
Fungicide to prevent post-harvest decay in small fruit vine climbing
plants, low growing berries, and stone fruits. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 91279-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0749.
Applicant: toXcel, LLC, 7140 Heritage Village Plaza, Gainesville, VA
20155 (on behalf of Green Ravenna, Via Matteotti, 16-48121, Ravenna,
Italy). Product name: Proradix MUP. Active ingredient: Fungicide--
Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 at 5.4%. Proposed use: For
formulation of fungicides to reduce soilborne diseases. Contact: BPPD.
    File Symbol: 91279-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0749.
Applicant: toXcel, LLC, 7140 Heritage Village Plaza, Gainesville, VA
20155 (on behalf of Green Ravenna, Via Matteotti, 16-48121, Ravenna,
Italy). Product name: Proradix. Active ingredient: Fungicide--
Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 at 0.8%. Proposed use: To reduce
soilborne diseases on potato, onion, garlic, tomato, eggplant, pepper,
squash, melon, watermelon, cucumber and strawberry. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 29, 2018.
 Hamaad Syed,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-04524 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 31177]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee

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

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 17, from 8:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

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 Program Management Committee meeting. The agenda
will include the following:

June 17

 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
 REVIEW/APPROVE Meeting Summary
    [cir] March 18, 2014, RTCA Paper No. 095-14/PMC-1203
 PUBLICATION CONSIDERATION/APPROVAL
    [cir] Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-317A--Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Aircraft Surveillance Applications
(ASA) System, RTCA Paper No. 102-14/PMC-1204, prepared by SC-186
    [cir] Final Draft, New Document, Safety and Performance
Requirements Document for CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS), RTCA
Paper No. 103-14/PMC-1205, prepared by SC-186.
    [cir] Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-326--Airworthiness Security
Process Specification, RTCA Paper No. 104-14/PMC-1206, prepared by SC-
216.
    [cir] Final Draft, New Document, Information Security Guidance for
Continuing Airworthiness, RTCA Paper No. 105-14/PMC-1207, prepared by
SC-216.
    [cir] Final Draft, Appendices to Document, DO-262A--Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Avionics Supporting Next
Generation Satellite Systems (NGSS), RTCA Paper No. 111-14/PMC-1210,
prepared by SC-222.
 INTEGRATION and COORDINATION COMMITTEE (ICC)
    [cir] Activity Report--ATC Wind Study
 ACTION ITEM REVIEW
    [cir] PMC Ad Hoc--Standards Overlap and Alignment--Discussion--
Status
    [cir] PMC Ad Hoc--Part 23 ARC Report--Areas/Recommendations for
RTCA Support--Discussion--Status
    [cir] RTCA Policy on Propriety Information--Discussion
 DISCUSSION
    [cir] Selective Calling Equipment--Discussion--Possible New Special
Committee to Update RTCA DO-93--Minimum Performance Standards--Airborne
Selective Calling Equipment
    [cir] SC-213--Enhanced Flight Vision Systems & Synthetic Vision
Systems--Discussion--Revised Terms of Reference
    [cir] SC-224--Airport Security Access Control Systems--Discussion--
Revised Terms of Reference
    [cir] SC-229--Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTS)--Discussion--
Revised Terms of Reference
    [cir] NAC--Status Update
    [cir] FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents--Report
    [cir] Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports and Active Inter-
Special Committee Requirements Agreements (ISRA)--Review
    [cir] European/EUROCAE Coordination--Status Update
    [cir] Discuss/Review EUROCAE new Work Group--99, Portable
Electronic Devices
    [ssquf] Discuss/Review EUROCAE new Work Group--100, Remote and
Virtual Towers
    [ssquf] Discuss/Review EUROCAE Work Group--82, New Air-Ground Data
Link Technologies
 OTHER BUSINESS
 SCHEDULE for COMMITTEE DELIVERABLES and NEXT MEETING DATE

    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 May 23, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-12574 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

General Comment:Please see attached request to extend the comment period by 105 days until October 22, 2014 submitted on behalf of Unitabac LLC.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54543-54546]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23583]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 192

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788; FRL-9985-79-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP43

Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and
Thorium Mill Tailings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing
its January 19, 2017, proposed rule addressing health and environmental
protection standards under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) that would have applied to byproduct materials
produced by uranium in-situ recovery (ISR) and would have subsequently
been implemented by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its
Agreement States. The EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule for three
reasons. First, the EPA, informed in part by feedback received on the
proposal, has serious questions as to whether the proposed rule as
written is within EPA's authority under UMTRCA. Second, the EPA no
longer believes that a national rulemaking to promulgate standards is
necessary at this time, as the EPA believes the existing regulatory
structures are sufficient to ensure the targeted protection of public
health and the environment at existing ISR facilities. Third, present
market circumstances suggest that the influx of new ISR license
applications that was once anticipated and that was an underlying
motive for the proposal is not likely to materialize.

DATES: The proposed rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7400),
entitled ``Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium
and Thorium Mill Tailings,'', is withdrawn as of October 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ingrid Rosencrantz, Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Mail Code
6608T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
343-2304; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 19, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed new health and environmental protection standards under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) (2017
Proposal).\1\ The standards proposed in that action would have applied
to byproduct materials produced by uranium in-situ recovery (ISR)
facilities and would have subsequently been implemented by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and NRC Agreement States. The EPA
initially proposed new health and environmental protection standards
for ISR facilities on January 26, 2015 (2015 Proposal).\2\ However, the
EPA decided to re-propose the rule on January 19, 2017, and seek
additional public comment on changes to the original proposal,
including changes in the regulatory framework and approach, based on
public comment and new information received from stakeholders. The EPA
has not finalized either of these proposals and is not doing so today.
Instead, the EPA is withdrawing the 2017 Proposal, which superseded the
2015 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 7400.
    \2\ 80 FR 4156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why is the EPA withdrawing the 2017 Proposal?

    The EPA has decided to withdraw the 2017 Proposal for three
reasons. First, stakeholders, including the NRC, raised significant
concerns regarding the EPA's legal authority under UMTRCA to propose
these standards. Based on those significant concerns, we now have
serious questions concerning whether the EPA has the legal authority
under UMTRCA to issue the regulations as developed in the 2017
Proposal.
    Second, the EPA no longer believes that a national rulemaking to
promulgate standards is currently necessary as the Agency believes the
existing regulatory structures are sufficient to ensure the targeted
protection of public health and the environment at existing ISR
facilities. The NRC stated in its public comments that its ``current
regulations, at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, and those of the various
Agreement States, as supplemented by site-specific license conditions,
guidance documents . . . and the operational experience and technical
expertise of the regulatory agency staff, constitute a comprehensive
and effective regulatory program for uranium in situ recovery
operations (ISR) facilities.'' (emphasis added).
    Third, present market circumstances suggest that the influx of new
ISR license applications that was once anticipated, and that was
motivation for the proposal, is not likely to materialize. Therefore,
there is less need for the rule, which was intended to provide a more
workable and efficient approach for addressing these expected new
applications, compared to existing mechanisms.

A. The EPA's Legal Authority

    In the 2015 Proposal, the EPA explained that it was ``proposing
these new standards'' under its authority in section 206 of UMTRCA
which ``authorizes EPA to promulgate general standards for the
protection of public health, safety, and the environment from
radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with . . . the
processing and the possession, transfer, and disposal of byproduct
material at sites at which ores are processed primarily for their
uranium and thorium source material content or which are used for the
disposal of such byproduct material.'' \3\ Many commenters stated that
this provision does not provide authority for the type of standards
that the EPA proposed. Other commenters agreed with the EPA's view that
UMTRCA provides authority for proposing these standards. The EPA
evaluated and responded to these comments in the 2017 Proposal.\4\ Many
of these same commenters subsequently submitted comments on the 2017
Proposal, arguing again that the proposed standards exceeded the EPA's
authority to establish ``generally applicable standards.'' \5\ The NRC
also submitted comments stating that it does not believe EPA has the
authority to develop standards of the type contained in the 2017
Proposal. Some of these commenters raised new arguments to support
their position that the proposed standards exceed the EPA's authority
under UMTRCA. In light of the comments provided on the various
proposals, including by the NRC, the

EPA now has serious questions as to whether we have the legal authority
to finalize the standards that were proposed in the 2017 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 80 FR at 4163; See also 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(1).
    \4\ 82 FR at 7418-7419, 7421-7422.
    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(1) uses the phrase ``standards of general
application,'' while 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(2) uses the term ``generally
applicable standards.'' We use these terms interchangeably
throughout the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the commenters' objections to the EPA's application of its
authority under UMTRCA in the 2015 Proposal centered around the meaning
of the phrase ``standards of general application'' in the statutory
provision. Commenters opposing the proposed standards stated, ``the
proposed rules were legally invalid and felt the EPA was overreaching
its authority under UMTRCA by proposing standards that are too detailed
and prescriptive.'' \6\ These commenters stated that the EPA ``was
redefining what UMTRCA established as the EPA's role to set general
standards'' since these commenters did not believe UMTRCA provided the
EPA with the authority to set standards that included ``any
prescriptive implementation requirements.'' \7\ Other commenters that
supported the 2015 Proposal stated that ``the proposed standards were
an appropriate application of the EPA's authority under the UMTRCA.''
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 82 FR at 7418.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to the many comments opposing the EPA's proposed
application of its authority, the EPA in the 2017 Proposal indicated
that it ``disagree[d] with those commenters who believe the EPA has
redefined its role or overreached its authority in developing the new
standards for ISR facilities.'' \9\ The EPA stated that ``the new
standards proposed in this action would apply the same requirements to
all ISR facilities and would establish general requirements . . .
[that] the regulatory agency would be responsible for implementing. .
.on a site-specific basis through the licensing process and would
retain the authority to determine when an ISR license can be
terminated.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several stakeholders, including the NRC, subsequently submitted
comments on the 2017 Proposal, again stating that the proposed
standards could not be reasonably classified as ``generally applicable
standards'' under UMTRCA and thus was outside EPA's authority. In the
2017 Proposal, the EPA identified the proposed standards as falling
into one of three different categories: (1) ``Constituent concentration
standards;'' (2) ``initial stability standards;'' and (3) ``long-term
stability standards.'' \11\ In its comments, the NRC asserted the
initial and long-term stability standards ``are not generally
applicable standards but are implementation criteria, and as such,
encroach upon NRC's authority and impair the NRC's ability to
effectively regulate its ISR licensees.'' \12\ The NRC also raised
several new significant legal arguments in its comments to support its
position that had not been previously raised with EPA.\13\ For example,
the NRC argues that ``EPA's authority to promulgate generally
applicable standards, at least for radiological material, is prescribed
by what is essentially EPA's organic authority, namely, the
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Reorganization Plan).'' \14\ The NRC
asserts that ``the Reorganization Plan provided EPA with an express
transfer of AEA authority to set generally applicable standards `for
the protection of the general environment from radioactive material,'''
and that the Reorganization Plan ``expressly prescribed this standard
setting authority by defining the term `standards' to mean `limits on
radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of
radioactive material'--essentially, numerical limits.'' \15\ NRC
further asserts that UMTRCA's legislative history shows that ``Congress
was aware of and considered [this standard-setting authority in the
Reorganization Plan] when it enacted UMTRCA in 1978'' and that
``Congress structured UMTRCA's grant of authority to the EPA
Administrator upon this very provision.'' \16\ The NRC points to
several excerpts from the legislative history to support its claim that
Congress intended ``that EPA's generally applicable standards under
UMTRCA, for both radiological and non-radiological materials, be in the
form of numerical limits, namely, limits on concentrations of
radiological and non-radiological material, quantities of such
material, or allowable doses or levels to individuals from such
material.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 82 FR 7405.
    \12\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0312 (comments of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission) at 11.
    \13\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0312, pp. 8-21.
    \14\ Id. at pg. 12.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. at pg. 13.
    \17\ Id. at pg. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters disputed the EPA's authority to adopt regulatory
requirements that they alleged could not reasonably be considered
``generally applicable standards.'' For example, the Uranium Producers
of America (UPA) argued that the proposed standards ``exceed[s] EPA's
jurisdictional authority as set forth by UMTRCA.'' \18\ UPA further
criticized the ``new prescriptive post-operational monitoring time and
data requirements and new prescriptive post-restoration requirements''
as an ``impermissible attempt by EPA to direct the compliance of ISR
operations.'' \19\ The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
raised the same objection, requesting that the EPA withdraw those
particular requirements ``because they exceed EPA's authority to
promulgate standards.'' \20\ TCEQ stated that UMTRCA ``confers the NRC
and Agreement State programs . . . , not EPA, with authority to
implement and enforce EPA's standards,'' and then asserted the EPA's
``proposed rules . . . go beyond the promulgation of standards and
address how those standards should be implemented and enforced.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0380 (comments of Uranium Producers of
America) at 7.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0302 (comments of the TCEQ) at 3.
    \21\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other stakeholders submitted comments in support of the 2017
Proposal, reiterating their position that they believe the EPA has the
authority to propose these types of ``generally applicable standards''
under UMTRCA.
    Based on the discussion above, EPA now has serious questions
concerning whether we have the legal authority to issue the regulations
as proposed in the 2017 Proposal. In conjunction with the grounds for
withdrawal discussed below, this uncertainty as to our authority weighs
in favor of withdrawing the 2017 Proposal.

B. Health and Environmental Protection Justification for the Rule

    When EPA initiated this rulemaking, there was already an effective
system in place providing environmental oversight of ISR operations. As
we explained in the 2015 Proposal, ``in 1983, EPA originally
promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 192, Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, in response
to the statutory requirements of the Atomic Energy Act [AEA] of 1954,
as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
(UMTRCA).'' \22\ The 2015 Proposal further stated: ``Requirements
currently applicable to active uranium processing and disposal sites,
including ISR sites (i.e., Title II sites) can be found in subpart D of
40 CFR part 192 (hereafter ``subpart D''). Subpart D contains
provisions for managing uranium byproduct materials during and
following the processing of uranium ores, and restoration of

disposal sites following any such use of those sites.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 80 FR 4161.
    \23\ 80 FR 4163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2015 Proposal, under the heading ``Why does EPA believe new
standards are necessary?'' the Agency stated: ``We believe that ISR-
specific standards are necessary because uranium ISR operations are
very different from conventional uranium mills and the existing
standards do not adequately address their unique aspects. In
particular, we believe it is necessary to take a longer view of
groundwater protection than has been typical of current ISR industry
practices. Although the presence of significant uranium deposits
typically diminishes groundwater quality, current industry practices
for restoration and monitoring of the affected aquifer may not be
adequate to prevent either the further degradation of water quality or
the more widespread contamination of groundwater that is suitable for
human consumption.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 80 FR 4164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to both proposals, the EPA has received numerous
comments questioning the need or benefits of the rule. For example, in
the 2017 Proposal the EPA noted that ``Industry commenters and others
say that there is no need for this rule because the EPA has not
identified an instance in which an ISR operation has contaminated a
source of drinking water.'' \25\ In the 2017 Proposal, the EPA also
said: ``Focusing on the area of surrounding or adjacent aquifers, the
EPA acknowledges that the Agency does not have sufficient information
to document a specific instance of contamination of a public source of
drinking water caused by an ISR . . . [however,] the Agency remains
concerned that the lack of data does not demonstrate that no
contamination is occurring . . . . The monitoring requirements in this
proposal address the issue of lack of data.'' \26\ (emphasis added). In
its comments on the 2017 Proposal, UPA refers to the above statement:
``EPA acknowledges there is no evidence of harm. . . . The EPA provides
no evidence to contradict [NRC's findings].'' By contrast, the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asserts that its comments
``demonstrate impacts to ISL mined aquifers . . . such that the
groundwater is substantially degraded and there will be long-term harm
to crucial natural resources.'' \27\ As is evidenced by the comments,
the debate is nuanced and complicated and reflects differing views on
the available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 82 FR 7404.
    \26\ 82 FR 7404.
    \27\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0380 at 2; EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0390
(comments of the NRDC) at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the public stakeholder comments mentioned above,
most importantly, the NRC, the agency tasked with implementing the
program, weighed in on the debate, stating in its public comments that
``the NRC staff has concluded that its application of the 10 CFR part
40, Appendix A regulations to ISR facilities meets the AEA standard of
`adequate protection' of public health and safety and the environment.
. . .'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0312 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering these factors, as well as the presence of an
existing program that the NRC (the implementing agency) believes is
sufficient, and the lack of expected growth and status of the industry
as described further in the next section of this withdrawal action, the
EPA believes that the reasonably envisioned public health and
environmental benefits of the proposed rulemaking are limited and do
not warrant EPA proceeding with its proposed rulemaking. The existing
regulatory structures, adequately address the current environmental
concerns.

C. Current and Anticipated Market Conditions

    Finally, the EPA believes that market forces themselves have
lessened the need for such a rule. Initially, several factors,
including the expected growth in this industry, led the EPA and the NRC
to believe that regulation of ISR activities could be more workable and
efficient if the EPA issued standards of general application specific
to the ISR facilities that the NRC would incorporate into its own
regulations and implement through its licensing activities.\29\ When
these efforts began, the NRC expected as many as 23 ISR license
applications for new facilities, expansions, and restarts.\30\ This
expected influx of ISR license applications is no longer anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0006 (``Regulation of Groundwater
Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,'' Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Memorandum COMJSM-06-0001, January 17, 2006)
at 2 (``. . . the recent rapid rise in uranium prices and mining
claims would indicate a significant future potential for new ISL
facilities.''); 80 FR at 4167 (``In recent years, NRC has recognized
the desirability of ISR-specific regulations. . . . [T]he Commission
determined in 2006 that the appropriate action was `initiation of a
rulemaking effort specifically tailored to groundwater protection
programs at in situ leach (ISL) uranium recovery facilities.' '');
82 FR at 7420 (``In addition, the NRC acknowledges that efficiency
could be gained by codifying its longstanding effective regulatory
regime into regulations specific to ISRs. As described in the
original proposal, this rulemaking was initially prompted by the
NRC's conclusion that ISR-specific rules are needed to create a more
workable and sustainable regulatory framework for this activity, and
is not based on any specific instances of identified
contamination.'').
    \30\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0405 (``Uranium Recovery Licensing
Activities,'' Presentation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC is currently reviewing license applications for only three
expansions of ISR facilities and, for the next five years, the NRC
expects only one license application for an expansion of one ISR
facility and one license application for one new ISR facility.\31\
Compared to the expected influx of ISR license applications, and the 15
ISR facilities owned by 10 companies at the time of the 2017 Proposal,
at the end of 2017 only approximately six ISR facilities were
operating,\32\ with production down 17% compared to late 2016.\33\
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
``Domestic Uranium Production Report,'' 4th Quarter 2017, there are no
ISR facilities reported as operating in Texas, with Alta Mesa, Hobson,
La Palangana reported as on ``standby.'' Additional ISR facilities in
New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming have been licensed but have not operated
and only one has undergone development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Expectations for number of future licenses based on NRC/EPA
telephone conversation on November 28, 2017.
    \32\ U.S. Energy Information Administration: ``Domestic Uranium
Production Report.'' 4th Quarter 2017 (February 8, 2018). The
operating facilities are Crow Butte in Nebraska and Lost Creek,
Nichols Ranch, Ross, Smith Ranch-Highland and Willow Creek, all in
Wyoming. Cameco subsequently curtailed production at the Crow Butte
and Smith-Ranch Highland facilities (see http://www.cameco.com).
    \33\ World Nuclear News, 20 November 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal of generally applicable national standards by EPA was
driven partly by the expectation of a significant number of new
facilities (which would have also applied to operating wellfields at
existing facilities), making these proposed ISR-specific standards a
more immediate prerequisite to achieving the efficiency across all
regulatory programs that the NRC acknowledged could be gained by a
``regulatory regime . . . specific to ISRs.'' \34\ Today, the EPA
questions whether this expected growth in operating ISR facilities is
likely to be realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 82 FR 7420. See footnote 29 for a more complete citation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this change in circumstances, completion of this rule is no
longer expected to achieve the regulatory efficiency that was sought
when this rulemaking effort began. The NRC and the NRC Agreement States
currently regulate, through existing licenses, the limited number of
operating ISR facilities and such an approach has been workable in
practice for this number of

facilities. We do not see a need for the EPA to continue investing its
resources to complete this rule to develop a ``more workable and
sustainable regulatory framework'' as originally anticipated when we
proposed these ISR-specific standards, especially where current
production is reduced and little or no growth is expected in the near
future. The statutory authorities providing for this ongoing regulatory
and licensing function remain unchanged. Thus, the appropriate
regulatory authorities may decide on a case-by-case basis to revise
their own pre-existing regulations based on these authorities if they
deem it necessary to assist with their management of ISR facilities in
a particular state or local area.
    In addition, we find support for our decision to withdraw the
proposed rule in the NRC's comments on the 2017 Proposal. As explained
above, the EPA developed the proposed standards partly based on its
understanding, after consultation with the NRC, that the anticipated
growth in the number of ISR facilities highlighted a need for standards
specific to ISR facilities, rather than continuing to apply standards
that were originally written to address surface disposal of uranium
mill tailings.\35\ However, the NRC expressed the following view in its
public comments on the proposed rulemaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 82 FR at 7402-3; 80 FR 4164-7.

    The NRC's current regulations, at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A,
and those of the various Agreement States, as supplemented by site-
specific license conditions, guidance documents (e.g., NRC's
``Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License
Applications,'' NUREG-1569), and the operational experience and
technical expertise of the regulatory agency staff, constitute a
comprehensive and effective regulatory program for uranium in situ
recovery operations (ISR) facilities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788-0312 at 1.

    Considering the prevailing economic conditions affecting current
and projected production, which leads the NRC now to expect
significantly fewer future license applications, as opposed to the
large increase that it expected at the time the rulemaking process was
initiated (which was motivation for the proposal), we conclude that
withdrawing this proposal is appropriate.

III. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this notice is provided by section 275
of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as added by section 206 of UMTRCA (42
U.S.C. 2022) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.).

IV. Impact Analysis

    Because the EPA is not promulgating any regulatory requirements,
there are no compliance costs or impacts associated with today's final
action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Today's action does not establish new regulatory requirements.
Hence, the requirements of other regulatory statutes and Executive
Orders that generally apply to rulemakings (e.g., the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act) do not apply to this action.

    Dated: October 18, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-23583 Filed 10-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42152-42156]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17398]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75425; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, To Introduce Asian Style Settlement and Cliquet Style Settlement for
FLexible Exchange Broad-Based Index Options

July 10, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On May 6, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to permit Asian style settlement
and Cliquet style settlement for FLexible Exchange (``FLEX'') Broad-
Based Index options. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on May 13, 2015.\3\ CBOE filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change on June 18, 2015.\4\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposal. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74914 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27408.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the original filing in its
entirety. Amendment No. 1 removes proposed amendments to the
strategy-based customer margin requirements in CBOE Rule 12.3 and
modifies Form 19b-4, and Exhibits 1, 3, and 5 to clarify that the
Exchange would apply the Exchange's existing strategy-based customer
margin requirements for broad-based index options, which are set
forth in Rule 12.3. Amendment No. 1 also deletes references to
portfolio margining from Form 19b-4 and Exhibits 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rules 24A.1 (Definitions),
24A.4 (Terms of FLEX Options), 24B.1 (Definitions) and 24B.4 (Terms of
FLEX Options) to permit Asian style settlement and Cliquet style
settlement for FLEX Broad-Based Index options.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Chapter XXIVA sets forth Flexible Exchange Options rules and
chapter XXIVB sets forth FLEX Hybrid Trading System rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asian Style Settlement
    FLEX Broad-Based Index options with Asian style settlement will be
cash-settled call \6\ option contracts for which the final payout will
be based on an arithmetic average of specified closing values of the
underlying broad-based index (``Asian option''). Exercise (strike)
prices and premium quotations for Asian options will be expressed and
governed as provided for in CBOE Rules 24A.4(b)(2) and 24B.(b)(2).
Asian options will have a term of approximately one year and would
expire anytime from 350 to 371 days (which is approximately 50 to 53
calendar weeks) from the date of initial listing. The contract
multiplier for an Asian option will be $100.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Puts will not be permitted.
    \7\ See Rules 24A.1(i) and 24B.1(m). ``The Index Multiplier for
FLEX Index Options is $100.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parties to an Asian option contract will designate a set of
monthly observation dates and an expiration date for each contract. The
monthly observation date will be the date each month on which the price
of the underlying broad-based index will be observed for the purpose of
calculating the exercise settlement value for Asian options. Each Asian
option will have 12 consecutive monthly observation dates (which
includes an observation on the expiration date) and each observation
will be based on the closing price of the underlying broad-based index.
The specific monthly observation dates will be determined by working
backward from the farthest out observation date prior to the expiration
date. If a given monthly observation date falls on a non CBOE business
day (e.g., holiday or weekend), the monthly observation will be on the
immediately preceding business day (``preceding business day
convention''). The parties may not designate a subsequent business day
convention for Asian options.
    Asian options will have European-style exercise and may not be
exercised prior to the expiration date. The exercise settlement value
for Asian options will be the arithmetic average of the closing values
of the underlying broad-based index on the 12 consecutive monthly
observation dates, which include the expiration date of the option.
Mathematically this is expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JY15.001

Where Si is the closing price of the underlying broad-based index on
monthly observation date on the ith monthly observation date.
    The exercise settlement amount for Asian options will be calculated
similarly to other options, i.e., the difference between the strike
price and the averaged settlement value will determine the value, or
``moneyness'' of the contract at expiration.
    An example of an Asian FLEX call option expiring in-the-money
follows. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of the S&P
500 Index over a year purchases a call option expiring on January 22,
2016 with a strike price of 2000 and a contract multiplier of $100. The
option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each
month.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         S&P 500 Index
               Monthly observation date                  closing value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-Feb-15............................................            2025.36
23-Mar-15............................................            2049.34
23-Apr-15............................................            2019.77
22-May-15 *..........................................            1989.65
23-Jun-15............................................            2005.64
23-Jul-15............................................            2035.10
21-Aug-15 *..........................................            2032.15
23-Sep-15............................................            2076.18
23-Oct-15............................................            2099.01
23-Nov-15............................................            2109.32
23-Dec-15............................................            2085.42
22-Jan-16............................................            2084.81
                                                      ------------------
Exercise (Averaged) Settlement Value.................     24,611.75/12 =
                                                                 2050.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Asian FLEX options use the ``preceding business day
  convention,'' the dates of May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015, were not
  used in the above example because those dates will fall on a weekend
  or a holiday. Instead the business days immediately preceding those
  dates were used as the monthly observation date.

    The exercise settlement amount for this 2000 Asian FLEX call option
would be equal to $5,098. This amount would be determined by adding the
12 observed closing values for the S&P 500 Index and dividing that
amount by 12 (24,611.75/12), which is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded).
As a result, this 2000 call option would be $5,098 in-the-money (50.98
x $100).
    If, in the above example, the strike price for the Asian FLEX call
option was 2060, that contract would have expired out-of-the-money.
This is because the exercise settlement value for this 2060 call option
is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded). Since the strike price of 2060 is
more than the 2050.98 exercise settlement value, this option would not
be exercised and would expire worthless.
Cliquet Style Settlement
    FLEX Broad-Based Index options with Cliquet style settlement will
be cash-settled call \8\ option contracts for which the final payout
will be based on the sum of monthly returns (i.e., percent changes in
the closing value of the underlying broad-based index from one monthly
observation date to the next monthly observation date), subject to a
monthly return ``cap'' (e.g., 2%) applied over 12 monthly observation
dates (``Cliquet option''). Premium quotations for Cliquet options will
be expressed and governed as provided for in CBOE Rules 24A.4(b)(2) and
24B.(b)(2). Cliquet options will have a term of approximately one year
and will expire anytime from 350 to 371 days (which is approximately 50
to 53 calendar weeks) from the date of initial listing. The contract
multiplier for a Cliquet option will be $100.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Puts will not be permitted.
    \9\ See CBOE Rules 24A.1(i) and 24B.1(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parties to a Cliquet option will designate a set of monthly
observation dates for each contract and an expiration date for each
contract. The monthly observation date will be the date each month on
which the price of the underlying broad-based index will be observed
for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement value for
Cliquet FLEX options. Each Cliquet FLEX option will have 12 consecutive
monthly observation dates (which includes an observation on the
expiration date) and each observation will be based on the closing
price of the underlying broad-based index. The specific monthly
observation dates will be determined working backward from the farther
out observation date prior to the expiration date. If a given monthly
observation date falls on a non CBOE business day (e.g., holiday or
weekend), the monthly observation will be on the immediately preceding
business day (``preceding business day convention''). The parties may
not designate a subsequent business day convention for Cliquet options.
    The parties to a Cliquet option will designate a capped monthly
return (percent change in the closing values of the underlying broad-
based index from one month to the next month) for the contract, which
will be the maximum monthly return that will be included in the
calculation of the exercise settlement value for the contract. On each
monthly observation date, the Exchange will determine the actual
monthly return (the percent change of the underlying broad-based index)
using the closing value of the broad-based index on the current monthly
observation date and the closing value of the broad-based index on the
previous monthly observation date. The Exchange will then compare the
actual monthly return to the capped monthly return. The value to be
included as the monthly return for a Cliquet option will be the lesser
of the actual monthly return or the capped monthly return.
    For example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad-
based index was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return for a
Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be included (and not the
2%) as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise
settlement value. Using this same example, if the actual monthly return
of the underlying broad-based index was 3.30%, the 2% value would be
included (and not the 3.30%) as the value of the observation date to
determine the exercise settlement value. This latter example
illustrates that Cliquet options have a capped upside. Cliquet options
do not, however, have a capped downside for the monthly return that
would be included in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing
on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying
broad-based index was -4.07%, the -4.07% value would be included as the
value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement
value. There would be, however, be a global floor for Cliquet options
so that if the sum of the monthly returns is negative, a Cliquet option
would expire worthless.
    Unlike other options, Cliquet options will not have a traditional
exercise (strike) price. Rather, the exercise (strike) price field for
a Cliquet option will represent the designated capped monthly return
for the contract and would be expressed in dollars and cents. For
example, a capped monthly return of 2.25% would be represented by the
dollar amount of $2.25. The ``strike'' price for a Cliquet option may
only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the ``strike'' price
for a Cliquet option may only span a range between $0.05 and $25.95. In
addition, the ``strike'' price for a Cliquet option may only be
designated in $0.05 increments, e.g., $1.75, $2.50, $4.15. Increments
of $0.01 in the ``strike'' price field (representing the capped monthly
return) will not be permitted.
    The first ``monthly'' return for a Cliquet option will be based on
the initial reference value, which will be the closing value of the
underlying broad-based index on the date a new Cliquet option is
listed. The time period measured for the first ``monthly'' return will
be between the initial listing date

and the first monthly observation date. For example, if a Cliquet
option was opened on January 1 and the parties designated the 31st of
each month as the monthly observation date, the measurement period for
the first monthly return would span the time period from January 1 to
January 31. The time period measured for the second monthly return, and
all subsequent monthly returns, would run from the 31st of one month to
the 31st of the next month (or the last CBOE business day of each month
depending on the actual number of calendar days in each month covered
by the contract).
    Cliquet options will have European-style exercise and may not be
exercised prior to the expiration date. The exercise settlement value
for Cliquet options will be equal to the initial reference price of the
underlying broad-based index multiplied by the sum of the monthly
returns (with the cap applied) on the 12 consecutive monthly
observation dates, which include the expiration date of the option,
provided that the sum is greater than 0. If the sum of the monthly
returns (with the applied cap) is 0 or a less, the option will expire
worthless.\10\ Mathematically this is expressed as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Prior to expiration, it is possible that the accumulated
monthly returns could become negative to a point at which it is
known that the value of the contract at expiration would be zero.
The holder or writer of such a position may choose to exit the
position prior to expiration for a negligible credit or debit
amount, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JY15.002

    An example of a Cliquet option follows. On January 21, 2015, an
investor hedging the value of the S&P 500 Index over a year purchases a
Cliquet FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a capped
monthly return of 2% and a contract multiplier of $100. The initial
reference price of the S&P 500 Index (closing value) on January 21,
2015 is 2000. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the
23rd of each month.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        S&P 500 Index
      Monthly observation date          closing value      Actual monthly     Capped monthly     Sum of monthly
                                             (Si)            return (%)     return (CMRi) (%)     returns (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-Feb-15...........................            2025.36               1.27               1.27               1.27
23-Mar-15...........................            2049.34               1.18               1.18               2.45
23-Apr-15...........................            2019.77              -1.44              -1.44               1.01
22-May-15*..........................            1989.65              -1.49              -1.49              -0.48
23-Jun-15...........................            2005.64               0.80               0.80               0.32
23-Jul-15...........................            2035.10               1.47               1.47               1.79
21-Aug-15 *.........................            2032.15              -0.14              -0.14               1.65
23-Sep-15...........................            2076.18               2.17            ** 2.00               3.65
23-Oct-15...........................            2099.01               1.10               1.10               4.75
23-Nov-15...........................            2109.32               0.49               0.49               5.24
23-Dec-15...........................            2085.42              -1.13              -1.13               4.11
22-Jan-16...........................            2084.81              -0.03              -0.03               4.08
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exercise Settlement Value...........                        [(4.08% * 2000.00)] + 2 = 83.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Because Cliquet FLEX options use the ``preceding business day convention,'' the dates of May 23, 2015, and
  August 23, 2015, were not used in the above example because those dates will fall on a weekend or a holiday.
  Instead the business days immediately preceding those dates were used as the monthly observation dates.
** Monthly capped return applied.

    The exercise settlement amount for this January 22, 2016 Cliquet
option, with a capped monthly 2% return (``strike price'') and a
contract multiplier of $100 would be equal to $8,360. This value would
be calculated by summing the monthly capped returns (equal to 4.08%)
and multiplying that amount by the initial reference price (equal to
2000), which equals 81.60. The ``strike price'' (2%) amount would then
be added to that amount (81.60) to arrive at an exercise settlement
value of 83.60. Because the ``strike price'' field for a Cliquet option
would be the manner in which the designated capped monthly return would
be identified for the contract and because the designated monthly
return for the contract would have been already substantively applied
to determine the exercise settlement value, the ``strike price'' of 2.0
would be subtracted from the exercise settlement value before the
contract multiplier ($100) would be applied [(83.60-2) * 100].
Accordingly, resulting payout for this contract would be $8,160.
    If the sum of the monthly capped returns had been negative, this
option would have expired worthless.
Margin
    The Exchange will margin Asian and Cliquet FLEX Broad-Based Index
options as ``broad-based index'' options under CBOE's existing
rules.\11\ Thus, under current Rule 12.3(c)(5)(A), the margin
requirement for a short call will be 100% of the current market value
of the contract plus up to 15% of the ``product of the current index
group value and the applicable index multiplier.'' Additional margin
may be required pursuant to Rules 12.3(h) and 12.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exhibit 3 to Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rules Applicable
    Except as modified by this proposal, the rules in chapters I
through XIX, XXIV, XXIVA and XXIVB will equally apply to Asian and
Cliquet options. For example, per CBOE Rule 6.1A (Extended Trading
Hours), Asian and Cliquet options will not be eligible for trading
during Extended Trading Hours. Also, for example, CBOE Rules 24A.7 and
24A.8 set forth the position limits and reporting requirements
applicable to FLEX Broad-Based Index options and Rules 24A.7 and 24B.7
set forth the exercise limits applicable to FLEX Broad-Based Index
options. Respecting positions and exercise limits, these provisions set
forth general rules and carve-outs for certain broad-based FLEX Broad-
Based Index options, which will apply with equal force to Asian and
Cliquet options.
Surveillance
    The Exchange will use the same surveillance procedures currently
utilized for the Exchange's other FLEX Broad-Based Index options to
monitor trading in Asian and Cliquet options. The Exchange further
represents that these surveillance procedures shall be adequate to
monitor trading in options on these option products. For surveillance
purposes, the Exchange will have complete access to information
regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    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.\12\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that the Asian and Cliquet settlement
styles for FLEX Broad-Based Index options may provide investors with
additional trading and hedging tools. The Commission also believes that
CBOE's proposal to allow Asian and Cliquet style settlement for FLEX
Broad-Based Index options may give investors and other market
participants the ability to individually tailor, within specified
limits, certain terms of those options. Further, the Commission
believes that the Exchange's proposal with respect to Asian and Cliquet
style settlement, contract specifications, margin, and other aspects of
the proposed rule are appropriate and consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that the launch of Asian and Cliquet
style settlement would be permitted subject to the Commission's
approval of an Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') rule filing to
make risk model changes necessary to accommodate the clearance and
settlement of the proposed options. The Exchange will issue a circular
to Trading Permit Holders to announce a specific launch date for the
proposed options.
    The Commission notes that the Exchange would use the same
surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's other
FLEX Broad-Based Index options to monitor trading in those options with
Asian and Cliquet style settlement. The Exchange has represented that
these surveillance procedures shall be adequate to monitor trading in
options on these option products. The Exchange has also stated that for
surveillance purposes, the Exchange will have complete access to
information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying
securities.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to 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-CBOE-2015-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-044. 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 CBOE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-044 and should be submitted on or before
August 6, 2015.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the amendment in the Federal
Register. Amendment No. 1 modifies the proposed rule change by removing
proposed amendments to the strategy-based customer margin requirements
in CBOE Rule 12.3 and removing references to portfolio margining. The
Commission believes that the removal of the proposed margin
requirements for Asian and Cliquet FLEX Broad-Based Index options, set
forth in Amendment No. 1, simply clarify that the Exchange would apply
the existing strategy-based customer margin requirements for broad-
based index options to Asian and Cliquet options. In addition, the
Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it will monitor
trading in the proposed products and would continue to evaluate the
strategy-based customer margin levels.\14\ Accordingly, the Commission
finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\15\ to
approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2015-044), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17398 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8247-8248]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9202-150]

Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

February 17, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 9202-150.
    c. Date Filed: December 4, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District.
    e. Name of Project: Stagecoach Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Yampa River, in Routt
County, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin McBride, Director, Upper Yampa
Water Conservancy District, P.O. Box 880339, Steamboat Springs, CO
80488-0339,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Anthony DeLuca,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, motions to intervene,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway
prescriptions is due 60 days from the issuance date of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-9202-150) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The Upper Yampa Water Conservancy
District requests Commission approval to amend the project's existing
license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to
raise the storage level of Stagecoach Reservoir by 4 feet. This
proposal will increase the spillway crest elevation, thereby enlarging
the project's reservoir storage capacity from 33,275 to 36,460 Ac-ft
and increasing the project's potential for increasing downstream water
supply. The physical composition of most of the Stagecoach Project
developments (e.g., the powerhouse, turbines and generators,
transmission and substation, and other mechanical, electrical, and
transmission equipment) will not be impacted. However, the project
spillway and reservoir will be altered by the proposal.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application. Comments, protests,
interventions, recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway
prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's web site under ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,''
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth
in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions
or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions should relate to
project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies
may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A
copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. As provided for in 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(i), a license applicant
must file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this
notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis: (1) A copy
of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received

the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3851 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44136]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0079]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 14, 2021, St. Mary's
Railway West LLC. (SMW), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification
and Certification of Locomotive Engineers), and part 242 (Qualification
and Certification of Conductors). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2021-0079.
    Specifically, SMW requests relief as part of its proposed
implementation of and participation in FRA's Confidential Close Call
Reporting System (C\3\RS) Program. SMW seeks to shield reporting
employees and the railroad from mandatory punitive sanctions that would
otherwise arise as provided in 49 CFR 240.117(e)(1)-(4); 240.305(a)(l)-
(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; 242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4), (e)(6)-(11),
(f)(l)-(2); and 242.407. The C\3\RS Program encourages certified
operating crew members to report close calls and protect the employees
and the railroad from discipline or sanctions arising from the
incidents reported per the C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Communications received by September 27, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-17119 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P