[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32162-32164]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14788]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83596; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BZX Rule 14.8, General
Listings Requirements--Tier I

July 5, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 21, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the listing rules under Rule
14.8, titled ``General Listing Requirements--Tier I,'' in order to
adopt listing standards for closed-end funds.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 its listing rules in Rule 14.8 in
order to add listing standards applicable to Closed-End Funds \3\ based
on existing criteria applicable to Closed-End Funds listed on NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American'').\4\ Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to add new paragraphs (e) and (i) under Rule 14.8 related to
the initial and continued listing requirements for Closed-End Funds,
respectively, as well as to make certain corresponding changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in proposed Rule 14.8(a), the term Closed-End
Fund means a Closed-End Management Investment Company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that the proposed quantitative rules are
substantively identical to the listing standards applicable to
Closed-End Funds on NYSE American. Specifically, the proposed
quantitative rules are substantively identical to the following
sections in the NYSE American Company Guide: 101(g), 102(a), and
1003(b)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Listing
    As proposed, a Closed-End Fund must meet the initial listing
requirements for either an individual Closed-End Fund (the ``Individual
CEF Standard'') or a Group \5\ of Closed-End Funds (the ``Group CEF
Standard''), as provided below, before being listed on the Exchange.
The Individual CEF Standard requires: (a) A public distribution (which
includes both shareholders of record and beneficial holders, but
excludes the holdings of officers, directors, controlling shareholders,
and other concentrated (i.e. 10% or greater), affiliated or family
holdings (``Public Shareholders'')) (a ``Public Distribution'') of (i)
at least 500,000 shares where there are at least 800 Public
Shareholders, except that companies that are not banks whose securities
are concentrated in a limited geographical area, or whose securities
are largely held in block by institutional investors, are normally not
considered eligible for listing unless the Public Distribution
appreciably exceeds 500,000 shares; \6\ or (ii) at least 1,000,000
shares where there are at least 400 Public Shareholders; (b) a Public
Distribution with a Market Value or net assets of at least $20 million;
(c) a minimum bid price of at least $4 per share; and (d) at least
three registered and active Market Makers. The Group CEF Standard
requires that a Closed-End Fund which is part of a Group be subject to
the following criteria: (a) The Group has a Public Distribution with a
Market Value or net assets of at least $75 million; (b) the Closed-End
Funds in the Group have a Public Distribution with an average Market
Value or average net assets of at least $15 million; (c) each Closed-
End Fund in the Group has a Public Distribution with a Market Value or
net assets of at least $10 million; and (d) each Closed-End Fund in the
Group has: (i) A Public Distribution of: (a) At least 500,000 shares
where there are at least 800 Public Shareholders, except that companies
that are not banks whose securities are concentrated in a limited
geographical area, or whose securities are largely held in block by
institutional investors, are normally not considered eligible for
listing unless the Public Distribution appreciably exceeds 500,000
shares; or (b) at least 1,000,000 shares where there are at least 400
Public Shareholders; (ii) a minimum bid price of at least $4 per share;
and (iii) at least three registered and active Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in proposed Rule 14.8(e)(2), a ``Group'' is a
group of Closed-End Funds which are or will be listed on the
Exchange, and which are managed by a common investment adviser or
investment advisers who are ``affiliated persons'' as defined in
Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 as amended.
Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 defines
affiliated person of another person as ``(A) any person directly or
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5 per
centum or more of the outstanding voting securities of such other
person; (B) any person 5 per centum or more of whose outstanding
voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or
held with power to vote, by such other person; (C) any person
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, such other person; (D) any officer, director, partner,
copartner, or employee of such other person; (E) if such other
person is an investment company, any investment adviser thereof or
any member of an advisory board thereof; and (F) if such other
person is an unincorporated investment company not having a board of
directors, the depositor thereof.''
    \6\ The Exchange notes that where the Public Distribution
appreciably exceeds 500,000 shares for companies that are not banks
whose securities are concentrated in a limited geographical area, or
whose securities are largely held in block by institutional
investors, the 800 Public Shareholders requirement would also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued Listing
    As proposed, The Exchange will consider the suspension of trading
in and will initiate delisting proceedings (and are not eligible to
follow the cure procedures outlined in Rule 14.12) for a Closed-End
Fund where: (a) The Market Value of the Public Distribution and net
assets each are less than $5,000,000 for

more than 60 consecutive days; (b) the Closed-End Fund no longer
qualifies as a closed-end fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(unless the resultant entity otherwise qualifies for listing); or (c)
it appears that the extent of Public Distribution, the Market Value of
such Public Distribution, or net assets of such Public Distribution has
become so reduced as to make further dealings on the Exchange
inadvisable. Any failure to meet any of the continued listing
requirements will subject the applicable Closed-End Fund to delisting
proceedings in accordance with the provisions set forth in Rule 14.12.
Trading Rules
    Closed-End Funds are equity securities, thus rendering trading in
Closed-End Funds subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the
trading of equity securities. The Exchange will allow trading in
Closed-End Funds from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time and the
Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate such transactions during
all trading sessions. As provided in Rule 11.11(a), the minimum price
variation for quoting and entry of orders in Closed-End Funds traded on
the Exchange will be $0.01, with the exception of securities that are
priced less than $1.00, for which the minimum price variation for
quoting and order entry will be $0.0001.
Trading Halts
    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all
relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend
trading in a Closed-End Fund. The Exchange will halt trading in a
Closed-End Fund under the conditions specified in Rule 11.18. Trading
may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the
view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These
include whether unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
Surveillance
    The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate
to properly monitor the trading of Closed-End Funds on the Exchange
during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of
Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of
Closed-End Funds through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's
surveillance procedures for ETPs.
Governance
    Any Closed-End Funds listed on the Exchange will be subject to the
governance requirements in Rule 14.10 applicable to all management
investment companies listed on the Exchange, including Closed-End
Funds, except as provided in the exceptions to certain governance
requirements for management investment companies as provided under Rule
14.10(e)(1)(E) and Interpretation and Policy .13 of Rule 14.10(e). The
Exchange notes that its governance requirements for Closed-End Funds
are substantially similar to those applicable to Closed-End Funds
listed on NYSE American.
Other Changes
    The Exchange is also proposing to make certain renumbering changes
to Rule 14.8 in order to accommodate the other proposed rule changes
described herein.
Listing Fees
    The Exchange plans to separately submit a proposal to amend Rule
14.13 related to listing fees in order to implement fees applicable to
Closed-End Funds prior to this proposal becoming operational.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rules will facilitate the listing and trading of additional
types of exchange-traded products on the Exchange that will enhance
competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and
the marketplace. In addition, the listing and trading criteria set
forth in the proposed rules are intended to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Exchange's proposed quantitative and
qualitative listing requirements related to Closed-End Funds are
substantively identical to those of NYSE American and, as such, the
proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Additionally, the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, as any Closed-End Funds
listed on the Exchange will be required to meet these proposed new
rules related to initial and continued listing and will be subject to
existing Exchange trading rules, trading halts, governance, and
surveillance procedures, as set forth above.
    The proposal is also designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade by way of the proposed initial and continued
listing standards, which is further bolstered by the requirement that
any failure to meet any of the continued listing requirements will
subject the applicable Closed-End Fund to delisting proceedings in
accordance with the provisions set forth in Rule 14.12. These
requirements, together with the applicable Exchange equity trading
rules (which will apply to Closed-End Funds listed under the proposed
criteria), ensure that no investor would have an unfair advantage over
another respecting the trading of Closed-End Funds. On the contrary,
all investors will have the same access to trading in Closed-End Funds
listed on the Exchange, as is the case for all other products listed
and/or traded on the Exchange, all to the benefit of public customers
and the marketplace as a whole.
    On the whole, the proposed rule change is designed to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the
listing and trading of an additional product type on the Exchange that
will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.
    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

(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, as amended. Instead, the
proposal is a competitive one which would facilitate the listing and
trading of Closed-End Funds on the Exchange, which the Exchange
believes will enhance competition among exchanges that list Closed-End
Funds, to the benefit of investors, issuers, and the marketplace
generally.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-047 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-CboeBZX-2018-047. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-047 and should be submitted
on or before August 1, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14788 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10488-10489]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science
and Clinical Pharmacology.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on April 13, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Silver Spring, The Ballrooms, 8727
Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-589-
5200.
    Contact Person: Anuja Patel, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for
express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-7001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call

the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On April 13, 2010, the committee will receive presentations
from the Office of Generic Drugs and discuss two bioequivalence topics
relevant to generic drug approval: (1) Revising the BE approaches for
critical dose drugs and (2) the use of partial area under the curve
(AUC) for the evaluation of abbreviated new drug applications for
products with complex pharmacokinetic profiles. Bioequivalence refers
to the evaluation of equivalence in the rate and extent of drug
absorption between two preparations of the same drug. Critical dose
drugs are medicines that require a narrow (or ``critical'') dose range
to achieve and maintain their intended effects and to reduce serious
adverse drug reactions. The ``area under the curve'' is the area under
a plot of drug concentration in the bloodstream versus time; it is a
measure of the extent of exposure to a drug after a dose is
administered.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 30, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before March 22, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 23,
2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Anuja Patel at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-4812 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


January 8, 2008

BY E-MAIL

James R. Berlow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USEPA Headquarters (5302P)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

As was suggested, I am writing to follow up on the December 14, 2007
meeting with you, other OSW participants, Steve Silverman, David Novello
(representing CKRC), Richard Stoll (representing Ash Grove Cement
Company), and me.  We committed to provide you with additional
information supporting our view that if EPA decides to remand HWC MACT
cement kiln “replacement standards,” it should vacate them as well,
which would leave the protective interim standards in place.

First, we told you that we would provide you with information comparing
the relative stringency of the two cement kiln standards that EPA
currently believes must be remanded – the chlorine and mercury
standards.  As we discussed at the meeting, it is easy to compare the
existing source chlorine interim standard with the final standard
because both are measured in the same way.  The interim standard for
chlorine is 120 parts per million by volume (ppmv), while the
replacement standard is 130 ppmv, a mere 8 percent higher.  See 40 CFR
§§63.1204(a)(6) and 63.1220(a)(6).

For mercury, the existing source interim and replacement standards are
expressed in different formats.  The mercury interim standard is 120
micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (µg/dscm), or a hazardous waste
feedrate corresponding to a maximum theoretical emission concentration
(MTEC) of 120 µg/dscm.  40 CFR §§63.1204(a)(2) and 63.1220(a)(2)(ii)
and (iii).  The replacement standard for mercury is a thermal standard.
It is an average as-fired concentration of mercury in all hazardous
waste feedstreams not exceeding 3 parts per million by weight (ppmw).
40 CFR §63.1220(a)(2)(i).  As was noted at our meeting, during the
replacement standard rulemaking EPA conducted a comparison of the
existing source mercury interim and replacement standards.  EPA’s
calculations showed that the two are very similar in terms of
stringency.  See EPA’s proposal Technical Support Document, vol. III,
chapter 23, Table 23-1.  Thus, for mercury, as well as for chlorine,
vacating the replacement standards pending EPA’s promulgation of new
standards would not result in more than a de minimis change in allowable
emissions.

Furthermore, as we discussed in our comments on the September 27, 2007
“Solicitation of comments on legal analysis,” 72 Fed. Reg. 54875
(hereinafter “CKRC’s comments”), all cement facilities that burn
hazardous waste have conducted multi-pathway site-specific risk
assessments.  In every case the emissions from these facilities have
been found not to pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

In addition, EPA’s actions following the vacatur of the 1999 HWC MACT
standards show that the Agency viewed the interim standards as being at
least akin to MACT standards.  Before promulgation of the interim
standards, EPA believed that the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of the 1999
standards meant that the Clean Air Act §112(j) “MACT hammer” would
fall, and states would need to impose site-specific MACT emission
limitations as a result.  Following issuance of the interim standards,
the Agency no longer believed that the §112(j) process should apply.
67 Fed. Reg. 6792, 6794-95 (Feb. 13, 2002).

As we discussed at the December 14 meeting, vacatur of standards does
not even require that an increase in emissions be less than minimal.  In
a number of cases, the D.C. Circuit has vacated EPA standards (including
NESHAP) where it did not consider whether the vacated standards would
serve the purpose of protecting human health pending issuance of new
standards.  That was the case in the 2001 vacatur of the HWC MACT
standards.  Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 872
(D.C. Cir. 2001) (per curiam).  The court also vacated the brick MACT
standards without considering the impacts to human health – as with
the CKRC case, it simply concluded that the standards had no technical
or legal basis and therefore should be vacated.  Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d 875, 884 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  Particularly where remand would result
in standards that “change substantially,” NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1250, 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2007), it is appropriate to vacate the standards.
Id. at 1262 (vacatur of industrial boiler MACT standards).  In fact, as
we pointed out in CKRC’s comments, EPA itself moved the court in that
case to vacate the industrial boiler MACT standards.  EPA correctly
recognized that as a result of the D.C. Circuit’s brick MACT decision
the industrial boiler standards had no basis and therefore should be
vacated, even though there is no doubt that the court’s vacatur of the
industrial boiler MACT standards will result in significant emissions
increases until EPA issues new standards.

As CKRC pointed out in its comments, vacatur is especially appropriate
where there is “an interim change that may itself be changed,” NRDC
v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364, 1374 (plywood MACT case).  That is precisely the
situation here.  See also the other cases cited and described in section
VII of CKRC’s comments.

It is true that in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the plywood MACT
case, the court stated that “vacatur would be disruptive if it set
back achievement of the environmental protection required by the CAA.”
 489 F.3d at 1374.  But for the reasons discussed above in this letter,
that is most certainly not the case here.  In dictum, the court also
noted that mere remand rather than vacatur might be appropriate where
emissions would increase if standards were vacated.  Id.  That language,
however, does not overrule the various decisions in which the court
concluded that vacatur is appropriate where the standards have no basis.
 Moreover, as discussed above, vacatur of the HWC MACT replacement
standards for cement kilns would at most result in de minimis increases
in allowable emissions.

CKRC’s comments describe how remand without vacatur would result in
additional testing and administrative costs that would serve no
environmental purpose.  For all these reasons, EPA should vacate the HWC
MACT cement kiln replacement standards for chlorine and mercury if it
determines that these standards have no basis under the Clean Air Act
and applicable case law.

We appreciate your willingness to meet with us and consider our views on
this important matter.  If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.

Michel R. Benoit

Executive Director, CKRC

cc:	Steven Silverman, OGC

	Frank Behan, OSW

● PO Box 7553 ● Arlington, VA  22207 ●<PHONE_NUMBER> ●
www.ckrc.org


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 14, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-12503

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of CENTURION AIR CARGO, INC. (CENTURION), filed 3/10/06 for:

XX  Waiver of 90-day dormancy condition for U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo
services

Background:

By Notice of Action Taken, dated December 14, 2005, the Department,
among other things, granted to Centurion two available frequencies to
conduct scheduled U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo air transportation services.
The award was subject to the condition that the carrier commence service
with the frequencies no later than March 14, 2006.

Application for Waiver of the Startup Condition:

On March 10, 2006, Centurion filed an application in the captioned
docket for a waiver of the startup condition imposed by Order 2004-3-16,
and asked that the startup period be extended through June 12, 2006.
Centurion states that it is in the process of obtaining the necessary
authority from the Government of Ecuador to implement its planned new
scheduled service to Ecuador.  Centurion further states that the process
of obtaining the required authority in Ecuador is a complicated and
lengthy one that involves establishing a legal presence in the country
and completing the necessary procedures to obtain a license from the
Ecuadorian civil aviation authority to provide scheduled air service.
Centurion believes that it will be prepared to commence scheduled
services to and from Ecuador as soon as it obtains Ecuadorian authority.
 Centurion states that it hopes to complete the licensing process by
June 2006.  Therefore, the carrier requests a waiver of the dormancy
condition for 90 days or through June 12, 2006.

Applicant rep.: Lonnie Anne Pera<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

Disposition:

We are granting Centurion an interim waiver of the dormancy condition
without awaiting expiration of the seven day answer period so that the
applicant can retain its frequency allocation while we await any
responsive pleadings to the application.  We will consider the
applicant’s request for a longer term waiver upon expiration of the
period for filing answers.

In taking this action, we find that grant of this limited interim waiver
is in the public interest in the circumstances presented; namely, that
absent this interim action on our part, the carrier’s frequencies
would expire before expiration of the answer period on its request.

The above action was effective when taken: March 14, 2006, through March
24, 2006.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

		             Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy, and (2) grant of the request was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

  Extension of the startup deadline is effective through March 24, 2006,
or until the date on which Centurion begins service with their allocated
U.S.-Ecuador frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.  As to any frequency
with which Centurion does not begin service by March 24, 2006, the
allocation with respect to that frequency will expire automatically and
revert to the Department for reallocation.

 Answers are due on March 21, 2006.  Should answers be filed, we are
calling for replies by 3:00 p.m. EST March 23.