[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95884-95886]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31256]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0691; FRL-9957-28-OAR]

Extension of Deadline for Action on the November 2016 Section 126
Petition From Delaware

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
determining that 60 days is insufficient time to complete the technical
and other analyses and public notice-and-comment process required for
our review of a petition submitted by the state of Delaware pursuant to
section 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petition requests that the
EPA make a finding that Homer City Generating Station, located in
Indiana County, Pennsylvania, emits air pollution that significantly
contributes to nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the
2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in
the state of Delaware. Under section 307(d)(10) of CAA, the EPA is
authorized to grant a time extension for responding to a petition if
the EPA determines that the extension is necessary to afford the
public, and the agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes
of the section 307(d) notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. By
this action, the EPA is making that determination. The EPA is therefore
extending the deadline for acting on the petition to no later than July
9, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0691. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Benjamin Gibson, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (C545-E), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27709, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Legal Requirements for Interstate Air Pollution

    This is a procedural action to extend the deadline for the EPA to
respond to a petition from the state of Delaware filed pursuant to CAA
section 126(b). The EPA received the petition on November 10, 2016. The
petition requests that the EPA make a finding under section 126(b) of
the CAA that the Homer City Generating Station, located in Indiana
County, Pennsylvania, is operating in a manner that emits air
pollutants in violation of the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA

with respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Section 126(b) of the CAA authorizes states to petition the EPA to
find that a major source or group of stationary sources in upwind
states emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the
prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) \1\ by contributing
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in downwind
states. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibits emissions of
any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with respect to any NAAQS. The petition asserts that emissions from
Homer City Generating Station's three electric generating units emit
air pollutants in violation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, set at 0.075 parts per million
(ppm), and the revised 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, set at 0.070 ppm.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The text of CAA section 126 codified in the United States
Code cross references CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) instead of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that this is a
scrivener's error and the correct cross reference is to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032,
1040-44 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \2\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level
ozone NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's
effects on public health and welfare. See 80 FR 65291 (October 26,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 126(b), the EPA must make the finding
requested in the petition, or must deny the petition within 60 days of
its receipt. Under CAA section 126(c), any existing sources for which
the EPA makes the requested finding must cease operations within 3
months of the finding, except that the source may continue to operate
if it complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules
(containing increments of progress) that the EPA may provide to bring
about compliance with the applicable requirements as expeditiously as
practical but no later than 3 years from the date of the finding.
    CAA section 126(b) further provides that the EPA must hold a public
hearing on the petition. The EPA's action under section 126 is also
subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d). See CAA
section 307(d)(1)(N). One of these requirements is notice-and-comment
rulemaking, under section 307(d)(3)-(6).
    In addition, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides for a time extension,
under certain circumstances, for a rulemaking subject to CAA section
307(d). Specifically, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides:

    Each statutory deadline for promulgation of rules to which this
subsection applies which requires promulgation less than six months
after date of proposal may be extended to not more than six months
after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a determination
that such extension is necessary to afford the public, and the
agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of the
subsection.

    CAA section 307(d)(10) may be applied to section 126 rulemakings
because the 60-day time limit under CAA section 126(b) necessarily
limits the period for promulgation of a final rule after proposal to
less than 6 months.

II. Final Rule

A. Rule

    In accordance with CAA section 307(d)(10), the EPA is determining
that the 60-day period afforded by CAA section 126(b) for responding to
the petition from the state of Delaware is not adequate to allow the
public and the agency the opportunity to carry out the purposes of CAA
section 307(d). Specifically, the 60-day period is insufficient for the
EPA to complete the necessary technical review, develop an adequate
proposal, and allow time for notice and comment, including an
opportunity for public hearing, on a proposed finding regarding whether
the Homer City Generating Station identified in the CAA section 126
petition contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
Delaware. Moreover, the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to
review and develop response to any public comments on a proposed
finding, or testimony supplied at a public hearing, and to develop and
promulgate a final finding in response to the petition. The EPA is in
the process of determining an appropriate schedule for action on the
CAA section 126 petition. This schedule must afford the EPA adequate
time to prepare a proposal that clearly elucidates the issues to
facilitate public comment, and must provide adequate time for the
public to comment and for the EPA to review and develop responses to
those comments prior to issuing the final rule. As a result of this
extension, the deadline for the EPA to act on the petition is July 9,
2017.

B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    This document is a final agency action, but may not be subject to
the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The
EPA believes that, because of the limited time provided to make a
determination, the deadline for action on the CAA section 126 petition
should be extended. Congress may not have intended such a determination
to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent
that this determination otherwise would require notice and opportunity
for public comment, there is good cause within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) not to apply those requirements here. Providing for notice
and comment would be impracticable because of the limited time provided
for making this determination, and would be contrary to the public
interest because it would divert agency resources from the substantive
review of the CAA section 126 petition.

C. Effective Date Under the APA

    This action is effective on December 29, 2016. Under the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has
good cause to mandate an earlier effective date. This action--a
deadline extension--must take effect immediately because its purpose is
to extend by 6 months the deadline for action on the petition. As
discussed earlier, the EPA intends to use the 6-month extension period
to develop a proposal on the petition and provide time for public
comment before issuing the final rule. It would not be possible for the
EPA to complete the required notice and comment and public hearing
process within the original 60-day period noted in the statute. These
reasons support an immediate effective date.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on
a petition.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the
EPA to take action on a petition and does not impose any new
obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA
``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This good cause final action simply extends the
date for the EPA to take action on a petition. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This good cause final action
simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition and
does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as
discussed in Section II.B of this document, including the basis for
that finding.

IV. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
110, 126 and 307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426 and 7607).

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 27, 2017.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the
subject of this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-31256 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47107-47109]
[DOCID:fr22au07-165]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56271; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Sections 703.22 and 802.01D of the Exchange's
Listed Company Manual Regarding the Listing and Trading of Index-Linked
Securities

August 16, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on August 3, 2007, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.22 of its Listed Company
Manual (``Manual'') to permit the listing of securities that do not
meet the one million unit initial distribution requirement but are
redeemable on at least a weekly basis at the option of the holders. The
filing also amends Section 802.01D of the Manual to apply the continued
listing standards under the heading ``Specialized Securities'' to
securities listed under Section 703.22.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.22 of the Manual to
permit the listing of securities that do not meet the one million unit
initial distribution requirement but are redeemable on at least a
weekly basis at the option of the holders. Section 703.22 is the
Exchange's generic listing standards for equity index-linked securities
(``Equity Index-Linked Securities''), commodity-linked securities
(``Commodity-Linked Securities''), and currency-linked securities
(``Currency-Linked Securities'' and, together with Equity Index-Linked
Securities and Commodity-Linked Securities, ``Index-Linked
Securities'').
    Section 703.22 of the Manual currently exempts a new listing of
Index-Linked Securities from the otherwise applicable requirement that
the issue have 400 holders upon listing, but only if the issue provides
for the redemption of securities at the option of the holders on at
least a weekly basis. The Exchange believes that, where there is such a
weekly redemption right, the same justification exists for an exemption
from the requirement to have one million units issued at the time of
listing as applies to the 400 holder requirement. The Exchange believes
that a weekly redemption right will ensure a strong correlation between
the market price of the Index-Linked Securities and the performance of
the underlying index, as holders will be unlikely to sell their
securities for less than their redemption value if they have a weekly
right to be redeemed for their full value. In addition, in the case of
those Index-Linked Securities with a weekly redemption feature that are
currently listed, as well as all of those that are currently proposed
to be listed, the issuer has the ability to issue new Index-Linked
Securities from time to time at the indicative value at the time of
such sale. This provides a ready supply of new Index-Linked Securities,
thereby lessening the possibility that the market price of such
securities will be affected by a scarcity of available Index-Linked
Securities for sale. The Exchange believes that it also assists in
maintaining a strong correlation between the market price and the
indicative value, as investors will be unlikely to pay more than the
indicative value in the open market if they can

acquire Index-Linked Securities from the issuer at that price.
    The Exchange states that the ability to list Index-Linked
Securities with these characteristics without any minimum number of
holders is important to the successful listing of such securities.
Issuers issuing these types of Index-Linked Securities generally do not
intend to do so by way of an underwritten offering. Rather, the
distribution arrangement is analogous to that of an exchange traded
fund issuance, in that the issue is launched without any significant
distribution event and the float increases over time as investors
purchase additional securities from the issuer at the then indicative
value. Investors will generally seek to purchase the securities at a
point when the underlying index is at a level that they perceive as
providing an attractive growth opportunity. In the context of such a
distribution arrangement, it is difficult for an issuer to guarantee
its ability to sell a specific number of units on the listing date.
However, the Exchange believes that this difficulty in ensuring the
sale of one million units on the listing date is not indicative of a
likely long-term lack of liquidity in the securities or, for the
reasons set forth in the prior paragraph, of a difficulty in
establishing a pricing equilibrium in the securities or a successful
two-sided market.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 802.01D of the Manual
to apply the continued listing standards under the heading
``Specialized Securities'' to securities listed under Section 703.22.
These continued listing standards require that the securities be
delisted when:
     The number of publicly-held securities is less than
100,000.
     The number of holders is less than 100.
     The aggregate market value of securities outstanding is
less than $1,000,000.
     For specialized securities that are debt, the issuer is
not able to meet its obligations on such debt.
    The Exchange proposes to exempt from the 100 holders requirement
Index-Linked Securities that are redeemable at the option of the holder
on at least a weekly basis. The Exchange believes this exemption is
appropriate because the securities in question are not subject to any
minimum holder requirement at the time of initial listing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular in that it
is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NYSE-2007-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-74. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSE-2007-74 and should be
submitted by September 12, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, 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 \6\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit investors
by providing an exception to the minimum public distribution
requirements for Index-Linked Securities with a weekly redemption
right. The Commission believes that the market price of Index-Linked
Securities with a weekly redemption right should exhibit a strong

correlation to the performance of the relevant underlying index, since
holders of such securities will be unlikely to sell them for less than
their redemption value if they have a weekly right to be redeemed for
their full value. The Commission believes that this exception is
reasonable and should allow for the listing and trading of certain
Index-Linked Securities that would otherwise not be able to be listed
and traded on the Exchange.
    The Commission further finds that the Exchange's proposal to amend
Section 802.01D of the Manual to apply the continued listing standards
under the heading ``Specialized Securities'' to securities listed under
Section 703.22 will clarify the applicable continued listing criteria
for Index-Linked Securities. Moreover, the Commission believes that the
proposed exemption for Index-Linked Securities that are redeemable at
the option of the holder on at least a weekly basis from an ongoing
distribution requirement is consistent with the rationale underlying
the exemption from the initial listing standards in Section 703.22 of
the Manual.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission does
not believe that NYSE's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues
and, therefore, that good cause exists for approving the filing on an
expedited basis. Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposal
should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional
competition in the market for such securities.
    Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\9\ to approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-74) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-16555 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 53489-53490]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1005-011]

Applications; City of Boulder, CO

October 9, 2009.

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments,
Protests, and Motions To Intervene, Ready for Environmental Analysis,
and Soliciting Recommentations and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conversion of License to Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 1005-011.
    c. Date filed: March 10, 2009.
    d. Applicant: City of Boulder, Colorado.
    e. Name of Project: Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the water supply facilities of the City of Boulder,
in Boulder and Nederland Counties, Colorado. All of the lands on which
the project structures are located are owned by the applicant. No
federal lands would be included in the proposed project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Carol D. Ellinghouse, Water Resources
Coordinator, City of Boulder, Colorado, Department of Public Works,
P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: The application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time. The Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, and recommendations for both the request to
remove licensed project facilities from the project boundary and
concerning Commission jurisdiction. The Commission is also requesting
terms and conditions for the Conduit Exemption application.
    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents--The Commission
directs, pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No.
533, issued May 8, 1991, 56 Fed. Reg. 23,108, May 20, 1991) that all
comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions concerning the application be filed
within 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project numbers (P-1005-011)
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 whose name appears on 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. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in a particular application.
    l. Description of request: In the application filed on March 10,
2009, the City of Boulder seeks to convert the currently licensed
Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project No. 1005 to a conduit exemption.
This action results in the removal of certain licensed project
facilities from the project boundary and from Commission jurisdiction.
    a. Licensed Facilities: The applicant proposes to convert its
license to a conduit exemption for the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric
Project No. 1005. The applicant proposes to remove the following
project facilities from the Commission's jurisdiction: (1) A 175-foot-
high, 720-foot-long concrete dam; (2) a reservoir (Baker Reservoir)
having a surface area of 200 acres; (3) a 225-foot-long tunnel
connecting a 11.7-mile-long pipeline; (4) a Forebay (Kossler Reservoir)
formed by three embankment dams; and (5) a steel penstock. The
aforementioned facilities would remain operational as part of the
applicant's water supply facilities.
    b. Conduit Exemption: The applicant proposes a conduit exemption
for the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project No. 1005. The proposed
project would be located on its water supply system in Boulder and
Nederland Counties, Colorado, and would consist of: (1) An existing
powerhouse containing one generating unit having an installed capacity
of 10 megawatts, and (2) appurtenant facilities. The City of Boulder,
Colorado, estimates the project would have an average annual generation
of 11.6 megawatt-hours that would be sold to a local utility.
    m. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 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.
    n. Mailing list: Individuals desiring to be included on the
Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the
Secretary of the Commission.
    o. 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 (see item (j) above).
    p. 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,'' or
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS;'' (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 or terms
and conditions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. 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.
    q. e-Filing: Comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, or terms and conditions 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 at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25018 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Subject:	Meeting with Portland Cement Association (PCA)

Location:	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: 		March 15, 2010

Participants:

Industry

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Jason Morin, Holcim

Curtis Leslie, Ash Grove (by telephone)

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

John Holmes, Lafarge

Craig Campbell, Lafarge (by telephone)

Dan Nugent, Buzzi

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Peter Tsirigotis

Steve Fruh

Keith Barnett

Elineth Torres

Steve Silverman (by telephone)

RTI International

Mike Laney

Roy Neulicht

Breda Munoz

Representatives of the portland cement industry met with EPA to discuss the status of THC and HCl data collection efforts and other technical rulemaking issues under both the NESHAP and NSPS. An outline of the items discussed is summarized in the attached agenda.

Attachment

EPA – PCA Meeting

Technical Rulemaking Issues

March 15, 2010

RTP, NC

12:00 – 2:30 p.m.

Tentative Agenda

(Draft, 3-10-2010)

(888) 387-8686, then 4089494

I.	Introductions

II.	Discussion of PCA comments

	A.	Mercury

		1.	Kiln Surveys and Variability Analysis

			a.	Brief review of survey and findings

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

		2.	Statistical Review of Variability in Mercury Data

a.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistical methodologies

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

		3.	Subcategories

a.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistics showing need for subcategories

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps

	B.	THC

		1.	Brief review of PCA's technical comments

		2.	PCA review of status THC testing program

		3.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

	C.	HCl

		1.	HCl Technology issues

			a.	Brief review of PCA technical comments

			b.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

		2.	Ongoing HCl Testing Program

			a. 	Brief review of PCA's data collection efforts

b.	EPA's current thinking on how it might use data

c.	EPA’s thoughts on the Rfd threshold approach and the 112(d)(4) alternative

d.	EPA’s timing of final rule given new HCl testing program; need to incorporate data into rulemaking; OMB review; and possible notice and public comment on the new HCl (and perhaps THC) data

	D.	PM

		1.	Brief review of PCA technical comments

		2.	Issues with use of 99% and possible violations

		3.	EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps

III.	Other Business

	A.	EPA's current thinking on and schedule for NSPS

	B.	Next Steps

IV.	Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 44615]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-172-000]

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 19, 2019, Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submitted a Compliance Refund Report regarding
Reactive Power Supply by American Municipal Power, Inc.'s Cannelton
Hydroelectric Facility in the MISO Region, pursuant to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's May 16, 2019 Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ American Municipal Power, Inc., 167 FERC  61,137
(May 16, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 9, 2019.

    Dated: August 20, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18289 Filed 8-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16579-16581]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66602; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Acceptable Complex Execution (``ACE'') Parameter Order Protection
Feature

 March 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 8, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .08,
Complex Orders on Phlx XL, by adopting new Rule 1080.08(i), which would
establish an Acceptable Complex Execution Parameter (``ACE
Parameter''), a price range outside of which a Complex Order (as
defined below) will not be executed by the PHLX XL[supreg] automated
options trading system \3\ following a Complex Order

Live Auction (``COLA''), as defined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL'' as the Exchange's
automated options trading system. In May 2009 the Exchange enhanced
the system and adopted corresponding rules referring to the system
as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995
(May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The
Exchange intends to submit a separate technical proposed rule change
that would change all references to the system from ``Phlx XL II''
to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish the ACE
Parameter in order to prevent Complex Orders \4\ from automatically
executing at potentially erroneous prices. The ACE Parameter feature is
designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. The Exchange
believes that the ACE Parameter feature will assist with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the
potential risk of executions at prices which are extreme and
potentially erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of the electronic trading of Complex Orders on
the Exchange, a Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy.
     A Complex Order can also be a stock-option order, which is an
order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying
security (stock or Exchange Traded Fund Share (``ETF'')) coupled
with the purchase or sale of options contract(s). The underlying
security must be the deliverable for the options component of that
Complex Order and represent exactly 100 shares per option for
regular way delivery. Stock-option orders can only be executed
against other stock-option orders and cannot be executed by the
System against orders for the individual components. Member
organizations may only submit Complex Orders with a stock/ETF
component if such orders comply with the Qualified Contingent Trade
Exemption from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. Member organizations
submitting such Complex Orders with a stock/ETF component represent
that such orders comply with the Qualified Contingent Trade
Exemption. Members of FINRA or the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') are required to have a Uniform Service Bureau/Executing
Broker Agreement (``AGU'') with Nasdaq Options Services LLC in order
to trade Complex Orders containing a stock/ETF component; firms that
are not members of FINRA or NASDAQ are required to have a Qualified
Special Representative (``QSR'') arrangement with NOS in order to
trade Complex Orders containing a stock/ETF component. The maximum
number of components of a Complex Order is six. A stock-option order
may include up to five options components (legs). See Exchange Rule
1080.08(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ACE Parameter feature is used to define a price range outside
of which a Complex Order will not be executed following a COLA.\5\ The
ACE Parameter is a percentage defined by the Exchange on an issue-by-
issue basis. The ACE Parameter percentage shall not be less than 3
percent. The ACE Parameter price range is based on the Complex National
Best Bid or Offer (``cNBBO'') \6\ at the time an order would be
executed. A Complex Order to sell will not be executed at a price that
is lower than the cNBBO bid by more than the ACE Parameter percentage.
A Complex Order to buy will not be executed at a price that is higher
than the cNBBO offer by more than the ACE Parameter percentage. A
Complex Order or a portion of a Complex Order that cannot be executed
within the ACE Parameter pursuant to the proposed rule will be placed
on [sic] Exchange's Complex Limit Order Book (``CBOOK'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ COLA is the automated Complex Order Live Auction process.
See Exchange Rule 1080.08(e).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 1080.08(a)(vi).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1080.08(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume the ACE parameter is set at 10%, and a PHLX XL
participant submits a Complex Order with a strategy to buy Series A and
buy Series B.
    A complex order is received to buy 30 Series A and buy 30 Series B
(30 units of the strategy) for a net debit of $8.40 and a COLA is
initiated. At the end of the COLA, the market is:

    NBBO for Series A is $4.50-$4.60, size 10 x 10.
    NBBO for Series B is $2.90-$3.00, size 10 x 10.
    cNBBO for the strategy is $7.40-$7.60.
    Executions to buy the strategy (buy Series A and buy Series B)
will occur up to $8.36 ($7.60 + [0.10 x $7.60]). Any remainder of
the order will be placed on the CBOOK at $8.40.

    The Exchange believes a minimum 3 percent level \8\ is reasonable
and appropriate because a marketable order that would deviate from the
cNBBO by 3% or more may be indicative of an extreme or potentially
erroneous price, and an Exchange participant would likely want to
evaluate the affected Complex Order further following the COLA before
receiving an automatic execution. The Exchange also believes that a 3
percent minimum is reasonable and appropriate in comparison to other
price check parameters currently in existence on at least one other
U.S. options exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For simplicity of explanation, the above example uses a 10%
ACE Parameter, which is consistent with the 3% minimum in the
proposed rule.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') currently applies a no less than 3 percent
``acceptable percentage distance'' outside of which it will not
execute complex orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
66207 (January 20, 2012), 77 FR 4073 (January 26, 2012) (SR-CBOE-
2012-004) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Automatic Execution and Complex Order Price
Check Parameter Features) (``CBOE Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert (``OTA'') to
membership indicating the issue-by-issue ACE Parameter percentages. The
Exchange will also maintain a list of ACE Parameter percentages on its
Web site.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in that it is designed 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 is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ACE Parameter feature is designed to protect investors from
extreme and potentially erroneous executions of their Complex Orders.
The Exchange also believes the ACE Parameter feature should assist with
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the
potential risks of receiving executions at prices that are extreme and
potentially erroneous.
    Finally, the proposed rule change should also make it easier for
users to read and understand the operation of PHLX XL as it relates to
the execution of Complex Orders, and will fully describe the operation
of the new ACE Parameter feature, all to the benefit of

PHLX XL participants, and to the options markets as a whole.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx has asked the Commission to accelerate the 30-day operative
delay.\14\ The Commission finds that accelerating the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the ACE Parameter is designed to prevent the automatic
execution of Complex Orders at potentially extreme or erroneous
prices.\15\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ The Commission notes that the ACE Parameter is
substantially similar to a price check parameter adopted by another
options exchange. See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.08(e) and CBOE Notice, supra note 9.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-31. 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 a.m. and 3 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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2012-31, and should be submitted on or before April 11, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6764 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 64620-64621]
[DOCID:fr16no07-68]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0436; FRL-8151-2]

Oxydemeton-Methyl; Final Determination to Terminate Special
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On August 8, 2007, EPA proposed to terminate the Special
Review of oxydemeton-methyl (ODM) because the risks that were the basis
of the Special Review are no longer of concern. The Agency offered an
opportunity to provide comment to the proposal. The Agency received no
substantive comments in response to the proposal and EPA is announcing
its final determination to terminate the Special Review of ODM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Dumas, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you as a member
of the general public or a stakeholder such as environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this
unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0436. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    On October 5, 1987, EPA initiated a Special Review of oxydemeton-
methyl (ODM) because of its potential to adversely affect reproduction
of workers who mix, load, and apply products containing ODM. The
Agency's

concerns regarding reproductive effects were based primarily on the
results of a two-generation rat reproduction study and interim progress
reports from an ongoing male rat reproductive toxicity study. Observed
reproductive effects were decreased parental body weight, parental
testes weight and fertility index, vacuolation of the corpus
epididymus, decreased litter size, decreased pup weight and increased
pup mortality.
    Since the initiation of the Special Review, additional data and
more comprehensive reviews of potential risks associated with ODM
exposure have been completed, including those described in the 2002
Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for ODM. In
addition, during the reregistration process EPA conducted an intensive
and public review of whether or not ODM registrations meet the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) standard for
registration. In the 2002 IRED and subsequent label amendments, the
Agency addressed the occupational risk concerns, including risk
associated with potential reproductive effects. There continues to be
evidence of reproductive effects; however, there is no evidence that
these effects inhibit the ability of organisms to reproduce. Similarly,
further data and analysis have addressed the concern for heritable
effects. With the label amendments that have been made since the
initiation of Special Review, ODM exposure is expected to be below the
levels where any reproductive effects occur. Because the risks that
were the basis of the Special Review are no longer of concern, the
Agency is proposing to terminate the Special Review of ODM.
    The final risk management decision regarding the risk to workers
exposed to ODM was completed with the 2002 IRED. A detailed description
of the rationale and supporting documents can be found in http://www.regulations.gov
 under EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0281. As described above and

in the 2002 IRED, concerns regarding reproductive effects were
addressed under FIFRA and no further action is required at this time.
As such, on August 8, 2007, EPA announced its proposed decision to
terminate the Special Review of ODM. The Agency received one comment to
that notice. The commenter offered no substantive information to alter
EPA's understanding of ODM risks. This notice announces EPA's final
determination to terminate the Special Review of ODM.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    A pesticide product may be sold or distributed in the United States
only if it is registered or exempt from registration under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended (7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.). Before a product can be registered it must be shown that
it can be used without causing ``unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment,'' (FIFRA section 3(c)(5)). The term ``unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment'' is defined in FIFRA section 2(bb) as ``any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the
economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of
any pesticide.'' The burden of proving that a pesticide meets this
standard for registration is, at all times, on the proponent of initial
or continued registration. If at any time the Agency determines that a
pesticide no longer meets this standard, the Administrator may cancel
this registration under section 6 of FIFRA.
    The Special Review process provides a mechanism to permit public
participation in EPA's deliberations prior to issuance of any Notice of
Final Determination describing the regulatory action which the
Administrator has selected. The Special Review process, which was
previously called the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
(RPAR), is described in 40 CFR part 154, published in the Federal
Register of November 25, 1985 (50 FR 49015). The purpose of this
process is to determine whether some or all registrations of a
particular active ingredient or ingredients meet the FIFRA standard for
registration, or whether amendment of the terms and conditions of
registration or cancellation of portions or all of the registrations is
appropriate.
    Prior to formal initiation of a Special Review, a preliminary
notification is sent to registrants and applicants for registration
pursuant to 40 CFR 154.21 announcing that the Agency is considering
commencing a Special Review. Registrants and applicants for
registration are allowed 30 days from receipt of the notification to
comment on the Agency's proposal to commence a Special Review.
    If the Agency determines, after issuance of a notification pursuant
to 40 CFR 154.21, that it will initiate a Special Review, 40 CFR
154.23(c) requires the Administrator to publish a Notice of Special
Review in the Federal Register. To conclude the Special Review after a
Special Review has been initiated, 40 CFR 154.31 requires the
Administrator to first publish a Notice of Preliminary Determination in
the Federal Register.
    That regulation requires the Administrator to respond to all
significant comments received on the Notice of Special Review and,
among other things, make a preliminary determination of whether any of
the applicable risk criteria have been satisfied. Finally, after
receipt and evaluation of comments on the Notice of Preliminary
Determination, 40 CFR 154.33 requires that the Administrator publish in
the Federal Register a Notice of Final Determination, including the
reasons for the determination. This Notice is being issued pursuant to
40 CFR 154.33.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides, Pests.

    Dated: November 8, 2007.
 James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-22362 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S