[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1653-1654]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57094; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-154]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Marketing Fee Program

 January 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 28, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. CBOE has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and >http://www.cboe.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 IV below. CBOE has substantially 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
    CBOE proposes to amend its marketing fee program as follows. First,
CBOE proposes to decrease the fee from $.30 to $.25 in the following
Penny Pilot classes: equity options, OIH, SMH, XLE, and XLF. CBOE would
continue to collect the marketing fee at the rate of $.10 per contract
in DIA and SPY, and not collect the marketing fee in QQQQ and IWM. CBOE
believes that this change would allow CBOE Market-

Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, or DPMs (collectively ``market-makers'') to
compete better for order flow in these option classes.
    Second, CBOE proposes to amend the fee such that the marketing fee
would not apply to transactions in Penny Pilot classes resulting from
orders executed through the Hybrid Agency Liaison under CBOE Rule 6.14
in which market-makers ``step up'' through the HAL system and trade
with orders that are marketable against the NBBO when CBOE is not the
NBBO. CBOE believes that this change would encourage market-makers to
execute orders at CBOE at the NBBO.
    CBOE proposes to implement these changes to the marketing fee
program beginning on January 2, 2008. CBOE is not amending its
marketing fee program in any other respects.
2.Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among CBOE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-154 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-CBOE-2007-154. 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 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
CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2007-154 and should be submitted on or before January 30, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-157 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72946-72949]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70957; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Amend FINRA Rule 5131 (New Issue Allocations and
Distributions)

November 27, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On August 23, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 5131 (New Issue Allocations
and Distributions) to provide a limited exception to allow members to
rely on written representations from certain accounts to comply with
Rule 5131(b). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 10, 2013.\3\ The Commission received two
comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.\4\ On November
22, 2013, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission to respond to
the comment letters and to propose a clarifying modification to the
proposed exception regarding the eligibility of an unaffiliated private
fund where a control person of the fund's investment adviser also is a
beneficial owner in the fund. The Commission is publishing this notice
and order to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 and to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70312 (Sept. 4,
2013), 78 FR 55322 (Sept. 10, 2013) (Notice of Filing of SR-FINRA-
2013-037) (``Original Proposal''). The comment period ended on
October 1, 2013.
    \4\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from William G. Mulligan, CEO, Cordium US., dated Oct. 1, 2013
(``Cordium letter''); and letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President &
Managing Director, Managed Funds Association, dated Sept. 30, 2013
(``MFA letter''). The letters are available on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2013-037/finra2013037.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    On August 23, 2013, FINRA filed the Original Proposal to amend
FINRA Rule 5131 to provide a limited exception to allow members to rely
on written representations from certain accounts in complying with
FINRA Rule 5131(b) (the ``spinning provision'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 5131 addresses abuses in the allocation and distribution
of ``new issues,'' \6\ and paragraph (b) prohibits the practice of
``spinning,'' which refers to an underwriter's allocation of new issue
shares to executive officers and directors of a company as an
inducement to award the underwriter with investment banking business,
or as consideration for investment banking business previously awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``new issue'' has the same meaning as in Rule
5130(i)(9). See Rule 5130(i)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The spinning provision generally provides that no member or person
associated with a member may allocate shares of a new issue to any
account in which an executive officer or director of a public company
\7\ or a covered non-public company,\8\ or a person materially

supported \9\ by such executive officer or director, has a beneficial
interest \10\ if such public company or covered non-public company has
certain current, recent or anticipated investment banking relationships
with the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``public company'' is any company that is registered under
Section 12 of the Act or files periodic reports pursuant to Section
15(d) thereof. See Rule 5131(e)(1).
    \8\ The term ``covered non-public company'' means any non-public
company satisfying the following criteria: (i) Income of at least $1
million in the last fiscal year or in two of the last three fiscal
years and shareholders' equity of at least $15 million; (ii)
shareholders' equity of at least $30 million and a two-year
operating history; or (iii) total assets and total revenue of at
least $75 million in the latest fiscal year or in two of the last
three fiscal years. See Rule 5131(e)(3).
    \9\ ``Material support'' means directly or indirectly providing
more than 25% of a person's income in the prior calendar year.
Persons living in the same household are deemed to be providing each
other with material support. See Rule 5131(e)(6).
    \10\ The term ``beneficial interest'' has the same meaning as in
Rule 5130(i)(1). See Rule 5130(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 5131.02 (Annual Representation) provides that, for the
purposes of the spinning provision, a member may rely on a written
representation obtained within the prior 12 months from the beneficial
owner(s) of an account, or a person authorized to represent the
beneficial owner(s), as to whether such beneficial owner(s) is an
executive officer or director or person materially supported by an
executive officer or director and if so, the company on whose behalf
such executive officer or director serves. Therefore, to comply with
the spinning provision, firms typically issue questionnaires to their
customers to ascertain whether any of the persons covered by the
spinning provision has a beneficial interest in the account.
    Under the spinning provision, whether an account in which an
executive officer or director of a company (or person materially
supported by such executive officer or director) has a beneficial
interest will be eligible to purchase shares of a new issue will depend
upon whether the company is a current, recent or prospective investment
banking client of the firm, as set forth in the rule. Where an
executive officer or director of a company (or a person materially
supported by such executive officer or director) has a beneficial
interest in an account, a member must also be able to identify the
company on whose behalf such executive officer or director serves to
determine whether the company is a current, recent or prospective
investment banking client of the firm under the rule; if the member is
unable to obtain such information, it has to resort to restricting all
new issue allocations to such account, which is not the intended
purpose of the rule.
    The spinning provision went into effect on September 26, 2011. and,
since then, FINRA has received feedback from industry participants that
obtaining the information necessary to ensure compliance with the rule,
and eligibility for the de minimis exception, has proved difficult.\11\
In particular, FINRA understands that members (and their customers)
have had difficulty obtaining, tracking and aggregating information
from funds regarding indirect beneficial owners, such as participants
in a fund of funds (``FOF''), for use in determining an account's
eligibility for the de minimis exception and that this has resulted in
compliance difficulties and restrictions, including in situations where
the ability of an underwriter to confer any meaningful financial
benefit to a particular investor by allocating new issue shares to the
account is impracticable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Among other exceptions, Rule 5131(b)(2) provides a de
minimis exception for new issue allocations to any account in which
the beneficial interests of executive officers and directors of a
company subject to the rule, and persons materially supported by
such executive officers and directors, do not exceed in the
aggregate 25% of such account.
    \12\ For example, members have noted that broker-dealers
normally do not know the identity of the beneficial owners of the
fund of funds invested in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in the Original Proposal, FINRA proposed a limited exception
from the spinning provision, subject to a set of conditions, designed
to ensure the important protections of Rule 5131(b) continue to be
preserved, while offering meaningful relief for members and investors
in situations where spinning abuse is not likely. Specifically, the
Original Proposal provided that members may rely upon a written
representation obtained within the prior 12 months from a person
authorized to represent an account that does not look through to the
beneficial owners of a fund invested in the account, provided that such
fund:
     Is a ``private fund'' as defined in the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940;
     is managed by an investment adviser;
     has assets greater than $50 million;
     owns less than 25% of the account and is not a fund in
which a single investor has a beneficial interest of 25% or more;
     is ``unaffiliated'' with the account in that the private
fund's investment adviser does not have a control person in common with
the account's investment adviser; and
     was not formed for the specific purpose of investing in
the account.
    The Original Proposal also required that, to be eligible for the
exception, the unaffiliated private fund may not have a beneficial
owner that also is a control person of such fund's investment adviser.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

III. Summary of Comments, FINRA's Response and Amendment No. 1

    As stated above, the Commission received two comment letters in
response to the Original Proposal.\13\ Both commenters strongly support
the adoption of the proposed amendment and stated that the proposed
rule would ease the tracking burden for allocations to accounts that do
not raise the concerns the spinning rule is designed to address, while
also preserving the efficacy of the rule.\14\ However, the commenters
also suggest certain modifications that they believe improve the
usefulness of the proposed exception without compromising the
objectives of the rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 4.
    \14\ See Cordium letter and MFA letter.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both commenters asked that FINRA eliminate the proposed condition
that the unaffiliated private fund must not have a beneficial owner
that also is a control person of such fund's investment adviser.\16\
The commenters noted that it is not uncommon for an FOF to have an
investor that is both a beneficial owner of the FOF and a control
person of such fund's investment adviser.\17\ One commenter noted that
investment in the fund by a control person serves the purpose of
aligning the interests of a control person with the interests of the
fund's investors and, therefore, is a practice that institutional
investors often require from fund managers.\18\ The other commenter
stated that this condition does not further the purposes of the
spinning rule and recommended eliminating this aspect of the
proposal.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See MFA letter.
    \19\ See Cordium letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, one commenter recommended that, rather than
excluding funds with a beneficial owner that also is a control person
of the investment adviser, the proposal instead should be amended to
provide that a member may rely upon a written representation obtained
within the prior 12 months from a person authorized to represent an
account that does not look through to the beneficial owners of a fund
invested in the account (other than a beneficial owner that is a
control person of the investment adviser to such private fund), subject
to the other

proposed conditions.\20\ FINRA agrees with this comment and, therefore,
proposed a clarifying amendment to delete the proposed condition that
the unaffiliated private fund must not have a beneficial owner that
also is a control person of such fund's investment adviser and,
instead, to include language substantially similar to that suggested by
the commenter.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See MFA letter.
    \21\ See MFA letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, where a beneficial owner also is a control person of the
FOF's adviser, a member must ascertain whether such person is a covered
person based upon the standards set forth in Rule 5131(b). If a member
obtains a written representation from an account that a beneficial
owner in an unaffiliated private fund is a control person of such
fund's investment adviser, but is not a covered person under the
spinning provision, an allocation to such account would still be
eligible for the proposed exception, if the conditions, as amended, are
met. If a beneficial owner in an unaffiliated private fund is both a
control person and a covered person under the spinning provision, a new
issue allocation to such covered persons would be impermissible, unless
such allocation is permitted under another exception (e.g., the de
minimis exception).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the commenters noted that it is not uncommon for
an FOF to have an investor that is both a beneficial owner of the FOF
and a control person of such fund's investment adviser. Therefore, the
Original Proposal would not have provided the intended relief for
members in many cases where the efficacy of the spinning provision
would still be preserved. Thus, instead of eliminating eligibility for
the exception for any FOF with a beneficial owner that also is a
control person of such fund's investment adviser, the revised proposal
would permit a member to avail itself of the exception with respect to
other beneficial owners (that are not also control persons of the FOF's
investment adviser). FINRA believes that this revision to the proposal
strikes the proper balance between members' concerns regarding the
difficulty of identifying indirect beneficial owners of an account and
preserving the important protections of Rule 5131(b).
    One commenter also recommended that FINRA either reduce or
eliminate the proposal's condition that, to be eligible under the
exception, the unaffiliated private fund must have assets greater than
$50 million.\23\ This commenter believes that the percentage ownership
threshold conditions, which require that the unaffiliated private fund
own less than 25% of the account and does not have a single investor
with a beneficial interest of 25% or more, along with the other
conditions, are sufficient to ensure that spinning would be
unlikely.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cordium letter.
    \24\ See Cordium letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is of the view that the percentage ownership threshold
conditions alone are not sufficient to ensure that the protections of
the spinning rule are preserved and, therefore, continues to believe
that the ``assets greater than $50 million'' component is an
appropriate additional safeguard. Specifically, FINRA believes that
this requirement helps ensure a sufficient degree of dilution that
would reduce the economic meaningfulness to a potentially covered
person of any single IPO allocation, and therefore, does not propose
eliminating or reducing this condition at this time.
    FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 120 days
following Commission approval.

IV. Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, the comments submitted, and FINRA's responses to
the comments, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\25\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\26\ which requires, among other
things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed exception
and required conditions, as amended, are consistent with the provisions
of the Act noted above by promoting capital formation and aiding member
compliance efforts, while maintaining investor confidence in the
capital markets. In simplifying and clarifying the operation of the
proposed exception for FINRA members and other industry participants,
the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, reasonably balances the compliance concerns and the
burdens noted by the industry while preserving the efficacy of the
spinning provision and FINRA's goal of assuring that the rule continues
to be designed to promote capital formation and investor confidence and
prevent fraudulent and manipulative behaviors.
    In addition, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, will result in any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act in that the proposed rule change provides an
exception to Rule 5131(b) for accounts with unaffiliated private fund
investors that face special difficulties under the existing exceptions
from the rule, and thus reduces differential impacts of the rule
without compromising the objectives of the spinning provision.
    The Commission believes that FINRA adequately addressed the
comments raised in response to FINRA's notice.

 V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\27\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, prior to the 30th day after publication of
Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. The changes proposed in
Amendment No. 1 respond to the comment letters received by the
Commission in response to the Original Proposal and further simplify
the operation of the spinning provision for members and other industry
participants.\28\ In addition, accelerating approval of this proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should benefit FINRA
members by aiding member compliance efforts while preserving the
efficacy of the spinning provision and should benefit investors by
maintaining investor protection in the capital markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \28\ See MFA letter. See also Cordium letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No.

1, 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://sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-037 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-FINRA-2013-037. 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 FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
person identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-037 and should be submitted
on or before December 26, 2013.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-037), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28975 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78428-78429]
[DOCID:fr29de06-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0977; FRL-8264-5]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--
January 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of one meeting of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, from 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The meeting may
adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft
agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted
up to 1 business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Washington
National Airport, 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0977, by one
of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0977.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0977.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--January 2007 Docket, Mailcode:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0977.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-
0977. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0977. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of

Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee--January 2007 Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Lorelei Kowalski, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Lorelei
Kowalski, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact
methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to: Rating Tool Workgroup revised draft proposal; ORD responses to
recent BOSC reports; update on the Computational Toxicology
Subcommittee; update on program review subcommittees for Safe
Pesticides/Safe Products, Technology for Sustainability, Human Health
Risk Assessment, and Homeland Security; update on the Human Health Mid-
Cycle Subcommittee review; update on the standing Laboratory/Center
Subcommittees; ORD briefing on ORD Communications; ORD briefing on an
Ecological Benefits Assessment Plan; update on EPA's Science Advisory
Board activities; and future issues and plans. The meeting is open to
the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Lorelei Kowalski at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Lorelei Kowalski, preferably at least 10 days prior to
the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: December 22, 2007.
Connie Bosma,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-22409 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13655-13658]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04967]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0092; FRL-10021-19-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Jefferson County; Existing and New VOC
Storage Vessels Rule Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet), on September 5,
2019. The revisions were submitted by the Cabinet on behalf of the
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District or APCD) and
make changes to the regulations for existing and new storage vessels
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is approving the revisions
that regulate existing and new storage vessels for VOCs because the
changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective April 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0092. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
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 can either
be retrieved electronically via www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is approving changes to Regulation 6.13, Standards of
Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic
Compounds, and Regulation 7.12, Standards of Performance for New
Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, of the Louisville Metro
Air Pollution Control District portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted
by the Commonwealth on September 5, 2019. These modifications update
the current SIP-approved version of Regulation 6.13 (Version 7) and
Regulation 7.12 (Version 7) to Version 8 of each.

II. EPA's Analysis of the Revisions

    In its September 5, 2019, submittals, the District includes a
modification that changes the true vapor pressure criteria

in subsection 5.1 of Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 from 1.0 pounds per
square inch absolute (psia) to 1.5 psia to better align with the
general applicability provision in Section 1 of those regulations.
Subsection 5.1 is a monitoring requirement which applies only to
storage vessels that: (1) Have an external floating roof, (2) have a
capacity of greater than 40,000 gallons, and (3) are not equipped with
a secondary seal or approved alternative control technology. EPA notes
that this change to the monitoring requirement does not alter the
number of tanks subject to emission controls. EPA also notes that
subsection 5.1 does not apply to any storage vessels that are newly
constructed or modified after July 23, 1984, because such vessels would
be subject to EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart Kb,
which requires that a secondary seal be installed on all vessels with a
design capacity greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and that store
volatile organic liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or
greater than 0.75 psia. See 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(2). Furthermore, the
District states that the monitoring requirement in subsection 5.1 does
not currently apply to any facilities under their jurisdiction.\1\ For
these reasons, EPA has determined, in accordance with CAA section
110(l), these changes will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reasonable
further progress toward attainment of a NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kentucky SIP submittal, September 5, 2019, Louisville Metro
Air Pollution Control District Regulatory Impact Assessment, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 5, 2019, SIP revisions also contain the following
changes: Necessary renumbering of Regulation 6.13, Section 2; revising
units of pressure measurement from millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) to
the International System of Units standard kilopascal (kPa) in
Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, Sections 1 and 3; correcting 11.1 psia to
11.0 psia as this is equivalent to the pressure of 570 mm Hg in
Regulations 6.13 and 7.12, Section 3; changing 10.3 kPa to 10.4 kPa for
consistency within Section 3 of Regulation 7.12, Section 3.4.3;
clarifying that subsection 3.3 applies only to vessels with a storage
capacity of less than 40,000 gallons in Regulations 6.13 and 7.12,
Section 3; \2\ changing the word ``section'' to ``subsection'' in
Regulation 6.13, Section 3; and replacing the term ``VOCs'' with the
phrase ``volatile organic compounds'' in Regulation 7.12, Sections 2
and 3. EPA has determined that these changes will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA because they are minor in
nature and do not change the number of tanks that are subject to
emission controls under these regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although storage vessels with a capacity greater than 40,000
gallons and vapor pressure equal to or greater than 1.5 psia but not
greater than 11.0 psia would no longer be required to install a
permanent submerged fill pipe, these sources would still be required
to install a floating roof and a vapor recovery system, or their
equivalent, in accordance with subsection 3.1. The technology
requirements in subsection 3.1 are more effective control
technologies than a permanent submerged fill pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September
21, 2020 (85 FR 59256), EPA proposed to approve the changes described
above to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP provided on
September 5, 2019. The September 21, 2020, NPRM provides additional
detail regarding the background and rationale for EPA's action.
Comments on the September 21, 2020, NPRM were due on or before October
21, 2020. Comments were received on the September 21, 2020, NPRM and
are addressed below.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received three comments on its September 21, 2020, NPRM, one in
favor and two in opposition. These comments are provided in the docket
for this final action. EPA has summarized and responded to the adverse
comments below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA must quantify the
potential emissions increase of raising the cutoff threshold from 1.0
psia (7.0 kPa) to 1.5 psia (10.4 kPa) because ``simply reasoning that
`a very small portion of hundreds of facilities [are applicable]' is
not a valid reason for determining compliance with CAA section
110(l).''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter and notes that the
comment improperly implies that the section 110(l) analysis was based
solely on the District's statement regarding the facilities that
subsection 5.1 could theoretically apply to. As discussed above and in
the NRPM, the removal of the monitoring requirement in subsection 5.1
for vessels storing VOCs of less than 1.5 psia will have no impact on
emissions. Subsection 5.1 is a monitoring requirement which applies to
certain types of storage vessels. The District changed the true vapor
pressure criteria of this monitoring requirement from 1.0 psia to 1.5
psia to better align with the 1.5 psia threshold in the existing
general applicability provision (Section 1) and the VOC emission
limitations (Section 3). The emission control standards for VOC
compounds are contained in Section 3 of rules 6.13 and 7.12, and none
of them apply to tanks storing VOCs with a true vapor pressure of less
than 1.5 psia. In addition, as noted above, subsection 5.1 does not
apply to any existing facilities and also would not apply to any future
storage vessels having a design capacity equal to or greater 40,000
gallons and storing liquids with a true vapor pressure equal to or
greater than 0.75 psia because NSPS subpart Kb requires that a
secondary seal be installed on all such vessels that are newly
constructed or modified.
    Comment 2: The Commenter states that ``EPA should disapprove this
SIP because VOCs from existing stationary tanks are emitting harmful
pollutants into the air we breathe.'' The Commenter further states that
EPA ``could also . . . not approve this SIP because there are currently
no viable ways to remove this pollution from existing stationary tank
wells'' and that ``these pollutants are believed to continue entering
and migrating underground from the existing wells and into water
bodies.''
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. A SIP is a federally
enforceable plan for each state that identifies how that state will
attain and maintain the NAAQS. In formulating its SIP, each state is
given wide discretion so long as it is consistent with all applicable
requirements of the CAA, including section 110(l), and EPA must approve
SIP revisions that meet these requirements. See CAA sections 110(a),
(k). EPA initially incorporated Regulations 6.13 and 7.12 into the SIP
in 1980 and 1982, respectively, as part of the District's measures to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. See 45 FR 6092 and 47 FR 25010. The SIP
revisions at issue modify those regulations in the manner described
above and in the NPRM, and EPA has determined that these revisions meet
all applicable requirements of the CAA. Therefore, EPA must approve the
revisions.
    Regarding the comment about existing stationary tank wells, it is
unclear what the Commenter is referring to. Regulations 6.13 and 7.12
contain measures to control air pollution from storage vessels of VOCs
and do not mention ``wells.'' To the extent that the Commenter is
concerned with potential non-air related environmental impacts, those
impacts are beyond the scope of this action on Kentucky's September 5,
2019, SIP revisions.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference APCD Regulation
6.13, Standards of Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for
Volatile Organic Compounds, Version 8, and Regulation 7.12, Standards
of Performance for New Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds,
Version 8, effective June 19, 2019, which make minor amendments to
units of measurement and the applicability of standards for both
existing and new storage vessels for VOCs, and which make minor
editorial changes for internal consistency. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into the plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the changes to Regulation 6.13, Standards of
Performance for Existing Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic
Compounds, and Regulation 7.12, Standards of Performance for New
Storage Vessels for Volatile Organic Compounds, of the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth on September
5, 2019. The September 5, 2019, SIP revisions update the current SIP-
approved version of Regulation 6.13 (Version 7) and Regulation 7.12
(Version 7) to Version 8 for each. EPA is approving these changes for
the reasons discussed above.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 4, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(c), Table 2 is amended under ``Reg 6--Standards of
Performance for Existing Affected Facilities'' by revising the entry
for ``6.13'' and under ``Reg 7--Standards of Performance for New
Affected Facilities'' by revising the entry for ``7.12'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                         Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Federal Register     District
      Reg           Title/subject         EPA approval date          notice       effective date    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Reg 6--Standards of Performance for Existing Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
6.13..........  Standard of            March 10, 2021.........  [Insert citation       6/19/2019
                 Performance for                                 of publication].
                 Existing Storage
                 Vessels for Volatile
                 Organic Compounds.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Reg 7--Standards of Performance for New Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
7.12..........  Standard of            March 10, 2021.........  [Insert citation       6/19/2019
                 Performance for New                             of publication].
                 Storage Vessels of
                 Volatile Organic
                 Compounds.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-04967 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 7581-7582]
[DOCID:fr22fe10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-5-000]

RTO/ISO Performance Metrics; Notice Requesting Comments on RTO/
ISO Performance Metrics

February 3, 2010.
    In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report titled ``Electricity Restructuring: FERC
Could Take Additional Steps to Analyze Regional Transmission
Organizations' Benefits and Performance,'' GAO-08-987. This report
recommends that the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC), among other actions, work with
regional transmission organizations (RTO), Independent System Operators
(ISO), stakeholders and other experts to develop standardized measures
that track the performance of RTO/ISO operations and markets and report
the performance results to Congress and the public annually, while also
providing interpretation of (1) what the measures and reported
performance communicate about the benefits of RTOs and, where
appropriate, (2) changes that need to be made to address any
performance concerns.
    As recommended by GAO, Commission staff has worked with a team
comprised of staff from all the jurisdictional ISOs/RTOs to develop a
set of performance metrics that the ISOs/RTOs will use to report
annually to the Commission. Commission staff and representatives from
the ISOs/RTOs have also met with interested stakeholders to solicit
their perspectives and comments on the proposed performance metrics.
    Commission staff requests comments on whether the proposed
performance metrics will effectively track the performance of ISO/RTO
operations and markets. Comments must be filed on or before March 5,
2010. Reply comments must be filed on or before March 19, 2010.
    Addresses: Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No.
AD10-5-000, by one of the following methods.
    Agency Web site: http://www.ferc. gov/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ``Documents
and Filing'' tab.
    Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail
or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For further information contact:

Jeffrey Hitchings, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Lisa Luftig, Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3316 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20646-20647]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April
22, 2010 at 1 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries

will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an
interest in the matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a),
(5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters
at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
April 22, 2010 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    An adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9116 Filed 4-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


24473 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on chick peas to control kochia; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on dry peas to control kochia; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Tennessee Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Texas Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; March 20, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Utah Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Vermont Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 30, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Specific: EPA authorized the use of smetolachlor on tomatoes to control eastern black nightshade and yellow nutsedge; February 12, 2003 to December 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of s metolachlor on tomatoes to control weeds; February 12, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 14, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Washington Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; February 7, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; March 5, 2003 to June 10, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control broadleaf weeds; March 15, 2003 to February 28, 2004. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of carfentrazone ethyl on hops to control hop suckers to indirectly control powdery mildew; March 20, 2003 to August 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of fluroxypyr on sweet corn and field corn to control volunteer potatoes; April 15, 2003 to August 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) West Virginia Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 17, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection Specific: EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control stem and leaf blight; January 17, 2003 to October 15, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on dry bulb onions grown on muck soils to control yellow nutsedge and other broadleaf weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on horseradish to control broadleaf weeds; April 15, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control common groundsel; June 20, 2003 to December 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Wyoming Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control ALS resistant broadleaf weeds; April 10, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; April 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman)

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest. Dated: April 28, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   11196 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0150; FRL   7304   8]

Myclobutanil; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the California Environmental Protection Agency to use the pesticide myclobutanil ( CAS No. 88671   89   0) to treat up to 7,000 acres of artichokes to control powdery mildew ( Leveillula taurica). The applicant proposes a use which has been requested in 3 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0150, must be received on or before May 22, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6463; fax number: ( 703) 308   5433; e mail address: madden. barbara@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Federal or State Government Agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs. 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.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24474 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0150. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 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/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0150. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0150. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0150. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24475 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0150. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) ( 7 U. S. C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State Agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of myclobutanil on artichokes to control powdery mildew. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request. As part of this request, the applicant asserts artichoke growers in California have suffered from infestations of powdery mildew, which has resulted in EPA's authorization of section 18 exemptions for use of triadimefon between 1988   1997 to control the disease. In 1998, the State began to request use of myclobutanil. Leveillula tauruca was first recognized as a disease on artichoke in 1985. The disease initially infects older leaves that are close to the ground and well shaded. If left untreated the disease destroys the affected leaf, causing it to collapse and dry up prematurely, thereby reducing the amount of photosynthetic area available to the plant. Overall effects of the disease include smaller, poor quality buds, and delayed yield which can cause an oversupply of artichokes on the market, thereby reducing prices to growers. In the past the Agency has determined that the situation is urgent and non routine and that without myclobutanil growers are likely to suffer significant economic losses. To date, the State claims the situation is the same and no new products are available to control powdery mildew on artichokes. The Applicant proposes to make no more than four applications of myclobutanil, using Rally 40 W, EPA Registration No. 707   215, applied at 0.1 pounds active ingredient per acre. Up to 7,000 acres of artichokes grown in California may be treated. Applications will be made from August 18, 2003 through August 17, 2004. Based on the maximum number of applications at the highest application rate, up to 2,800 pounds of myclobutanil could be applied. This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use which has been requested in 3 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: May 21, 2003.

Debra Edwards,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   11197 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7494   8]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Franklin Street Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122( i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (`` CERCLA''), 42 U. S. C. 9622( i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Franklin Street Superfund site in Malden, Massachusetts with the following settling parties: Robert M. Trager, Steven J. Trager, Ada Trager, Carol Shaloo Trager, and Ada Trager as Trustee of the Twenty Two Realty Trust. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay $ 125,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to section 107( a) of CERCLA, 42 U. S. C. 9607( a). For thirty ( 30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at Superfund Reading Room, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office, located at One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the Superfund Reading Room, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office, located at One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue can be obtained from Rona H. Gregory, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mailcode RAA, Boston, Massachusetts 02214,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 15, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2004-16910

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE
        Date Filed:  January 13, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate, on behalf of Lockheed Martin, two, one-way
cargo charter flights from North Island NAS, California, to Denver,
Colorado, during the period January 20-22, 2004, using its AN-124-100
aircraft.  On the first of these two flights, Volga-Dnepr plans to carry
one Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Atlas III Booster Launch Vehicle, and,
on the second flight, one Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Centaur III Upper
Stage.  The applicant stated that Lockheed Martin needs prompt shipment
of this cargo to Denver to meet an extremely tight final assembly and
test schedule, that the cargo is too large for transportation on
U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation is not feasible
because of the delicate nature and high value of the cargo, and
conditions unsuitable to maintaining system integrity compliance.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>         DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                             Action date:  January 15,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  January 15, 2004, through January
25, 2004

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr’s request to operate
its proposed two, one-way flights from North Island to Denver, through
January 25, 2004.  We found that its request met all the relevant
criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of
this type and that the grant was required in the public interest.
Specifically, we were persuaded that the need to move the cargo promptly
in order to meet the urgent assembly and test schedule, the fact that
the cargo could not be transported by surface transportation because of
its delicate nature and high value, the potential negative impact of
delivery delay; and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo,
constituted an emergency not arising in the normal course of business.
Moreover, based on the representations of the U.S. carriers, we
concluded that no U.S. carrier had aircraft available that could be used
to conduct the operations at issue here.  We also found that grant of
this authority would prevent unreasonable hardship to Lockheed Martin.
Finally, we found that the applicant was qualified to perform its
proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that the applicant
must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized
operation.

Action taken by:        Karan K. Bhatia

                                  Assistant Secretary

                     for Aviation and International Affairs

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

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