[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52630-52633]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21470]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[OAR-2004-0091; FRL-9721-5]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental
Shelf (``OCS'') Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources
located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries must be updated
periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the
corresponding onshore area (``COA''), as mandated by section 328(a)(1)
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (``the Act''). The portion of
the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the
requirements for OCS sources for which the Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District (``Santa Barbara APCD'' or ``District'') is
the designated COA. The intended effect of approving the OCS
requirements for the Santa Barbara APCD is to regulate emissions from
OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. The changes to
the existing requirements discussed below are proposed to be
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and
listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number OAR-2004-0091,
by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Air Division (Air-
4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,\1\ which
established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in
order to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality
standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the
Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except
those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.
Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25
miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same
as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because
the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore
requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that EPA update the
OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR
63774), and the preamble to the final rule promulgated September 4,
1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background and information on the OCS
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will
occur (1) At least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent
under section 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule
to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55. This
proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of
requirements by the Santa Barbara County APCD. Public comments received
in writing within 30 days of publication of this document will be
considered by EPA before publishing a final rule.
    Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements
to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of
States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements.
To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable
onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's
flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into
part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the
requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating
rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state
implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the Act.
Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules
or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately
be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS
rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for
SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA
for inclusion in the SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviewed the rules submitted for
inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the
attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality
standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed
expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that
they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated
the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR
55.12(e). EPA has excluded rules that regulate toxics, which are not
related to the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient
air quality standards.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. EPA will consider these comments
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
Region IX Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.

III. Proposed Action

    1. After review of the requirements submitted by the Santa Barbara
County APCD against the criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR part 55,
EPA is proposing to make the following District requirements applicable
to OCS sources. Earlier versions of these District rules are currently
implemented on the OCS:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Adoption or
            Rule No.                       Name            amended date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
102............................  Definitions............         6/21/12
202............................  Exemptions to Rule 201.         6/21/12
321............................  Solvent Cleaning                6/21/12
                                  Machines and Solvent
                                  Cleaning.
330............................  Surface Coating of              6/21/12
                                  Metal Parts and
                                  Products.
349............................  Polyester Resin                 6/21/12
                                  Operations.
352............................  Natural Gas-Fired Fan-         10/20/11
                                  Type Central Furnaces
                                  and Small Water
                                  Heaters.
353............................  Adhesives and Sealants.         6/21/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District also submitted the following new rule which is not
currently in effect on the OCS, for incorporation into Part 55. We are
proposing to incorporate this rule into part 55:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
349............................  Polyester Resin                 6/21/12
                                  Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish
requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within
25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air
control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must
incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist
onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS
consistency updates, EPA's role is to maintain consistency between OCS
regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that they
meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action simply proposes to update
the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with requirements
onshore, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law.
    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55 and, by extension,
this update to the rules, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0249. Notice of OMB's approval of EPA Information Collection Request
(``ICR'') No. 1601.07 was published in the Federal Register on February
17, 2009 (74 FR 7432). The approval expires January 31, 2012. As EPA
previously indicated (70 FR 65897-65898 (November 1, 2005)), the annual
public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of information
under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 549 hours per response,
using the definition of burden provided in 44 U.S.C. 3502(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer
Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 3, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55, is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 55--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as amended by Pub. L. 101-549.

    2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(F) to
read as follows:

Sec.  55.14  Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25
miles of states seaward boundaries, by state.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources.
* * * * *
    3. Appendix A to CFR part 55 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)(6) under the heading ``California'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements
Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

* * * * *

California

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The following requirements are contained in Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS
Sources:
Rule 102 Definitions (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 103 Severability (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 106 Notice to Comply for Minor Violations (Repealed 01/01/2001)
Rule 107 Emergencies (Adopted 04/19/01)
Rule 201 Permits Required (Adopted 06/19/08)
Rule 202 Exemptions to Rule 201 (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 203 Transfer (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 204 Applications (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 205 Standards for Granting Permits (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 206 Conditional Approval of Authority to Construct or Permit to
Operate (Adopted 10/15/91)
Rule 207 Denial of Application (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 210 Fees (Adopted 03/17/05)
Rule 212 Emission Statements (Adopted 10/20/92)
Rule 301 Circumvention (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 302 Visible Emissions (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 304 Particulate Matter-Northern Zone (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 305 Particulate Matter Concentration-Southern Zone (Adopted 10/
23/78)
Rule 306 Dust and Fumes-Northern Zone (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 307 Particulate Matter Emission Weight Rate-Southern Zone
(Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 308 Incinerator Burning (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 309 Specific Contaminants (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 310 Odorous Organic Sulfides (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 311 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 312 Open Fires (Adopted 10/02/90)
Rule 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline (Adopted 01/15/09)
Rule 317 Organic Solvents (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 318 Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems-Southern Zone (Adopted
10/23/78)
Rule 321 Solvent Cleaning Operations (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 322 Metal Surface Coating Thinner and Reducer (Adopted 10/23/
78)
Rule 323 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 11/15/01)
Rule 324 Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 325 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 07/19/01)
Rule 326 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 01/
18/01)
Rule 327 Organic Liquid Cargo Tank Vessel Loading (Adopted 12/16/85)
Rule 328 Continuous Emission Monitoring (Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 330 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Adopted 06/21/
12)
Rule 331 Fugitive Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (Adopted 12/
10/91)
Rule 332 Petroleum Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater
Separators

and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 06/11/79)
Rule 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (Adopted 06/19/08)
Rule 342 Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) from
Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters) (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 343 Petroleum Storage Tank Degassing (Adopted 12/14/93)
Rule 344 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, and Well Cellars (Adopted 11/10/94)
Rule 346 Loading of Organic Liquid Cargo Vessels (Adopted 01/18/01)
Rule 349 Polyester Resin Operations (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 352 Natural Gas-Fired Fan-Type Central Furnaces and Residential
Water Heaters (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 353 Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 06/21/12)
Rule 359 Flares and Thermal Oxidizers (Adopted 06/28/94)
Rule 360 Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters
and Small Boilers (Adopted 10/17/02)
Rule 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters
(Adopted 01/17/08)
Rule 370 Potential to Emit--Limitations for Part 70 Sources (Adopted
01/20/11)
Rule 505 Breakdown Conditions Sections A., B.1,. and D. only
(Adopted 10/23/78)
Rule 603 Emergency Episode Plans (Adopted 06/15/81)
Rule 702 General Conformity (Adopted 10/20/94)
Rule 801 New Source Review (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 802 Nonattainment Review (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 803 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 804 Emission Offsets (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 805 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Modeling (Adopted 04/17/97)
Rule 808 New Source Review for Major Sources of Hazardous Air
Pollutants (Adopted 05/20/99)
Rule 810 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Adopted
01/20/11)
Rule 1301 Part 70 Operating Permits--General Information (Adopted
01/20/11)
Rule 1302 Part 70 Operating Permits--Permit Application (Adopted 11/
09/93)
Rule 1303 Part 70 Operating Permits--Permits (Adopted 11/09/93)
Rule 1304 Part 70 Operating Permits--Issuance, Renewal, Modification
and Reopening (Adopted 11/09/93)
Rule 1305 Part 70 Operating Permits--Enforcement (Adopted 11/09/93)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21470 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


12/21/06 DRAFT

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

JANUARY 24, 2007 *

PUBLIC MEETING

Sheraton Crystal City Hotel

1800 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202

703 486 1111

HSRB WEB SITE   http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0998

( 8:30 AM	Introduction and Identification of Board Members – Celia
Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 8:45 AM	Welcome – George Gray, Ph.D. (EPA Science Advisor)

( 8:55 AM	Opening Remarks – Mr. Jim Jones (Director, Office of
Pesticide Programs, OPPTS) EPA)

( 9:05 AM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D.
(Designated Federal Officer [DFO], HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 9:10 AM	Meeting Process – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 9:25 AM	Update on EPA Follow-up of HSRB Recommendations – Mr.
William Jordan (EPA, OPP)

Insect Repellent Completed Efficacy Studies EMD-003 and EMD-004

( 9:35 PM	Science and Ethics of Insect Repellent Completed Efficacy
Studies EMD-003 and EMD-004 - Clara Fuentes, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA) and Mr.
John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 10:15 AM	Break

( 10:30 AM	Public Comments

( 11:00 AM	Board Discussion

EMD-003.1 and EMD-003.2: Tick Repellency with Lotion and Pump Spray
Formulations

a.   Are these studies sufficiently sound, from a scientific
perspective, to be used to assess the repellent efficacy of the
formulations tested against ticks and mosquitoes?

b.   Does available information support a determination that these
studies were conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L
of EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 26?

EMD-004.1 and EMD-004.2: Mosquito Repellency with Lotion and Pump Spray
Formulations

a.   Are these studies sufficiently sound, from a scientific
perspective, to be used to assess the repellent efficacy of the
formulations tested against ticks and mosquitoes?

b.   Does available information support a determination that these
studies were conducted in substantial compliance with subparts K and L
of EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 26?

( 12:30 PM	Lunch

Insect Repellent Efficacy Protocol SCI-001

( 1:30 PM	Science and Ethics of Insect Repellent Efficacy Protocol
SCI-001– Mr. Kevin Sweeney (OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley (OPP, EPA)

( 2:30 PM	Public Comments

( 3:00 PM	Break

( 3:15 PM	Board Discussion

a. 	If the proposed research described in Protocol SCI-001 from
Carroll-Loye Biological Research is revised as suggested by EPA, does
the research appear likely to generate scientifically reliable data,
useful for assessing the efficacy of the test substances for repelling
mosquitoes?

b. 	If the proposed research described in Protocol SCI-001 from
Carroll-Loye Biological Research is revised as suggested by EPA, does
the research appear to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
26, subparts K and L?

( 4:30 PM	Adjournment

*  Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further
information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this
meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24048-24049]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-5488/File No. 803-00246]

Edmunds Private Capital, LLC

April 24, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers
Act'').
    Applicant: Edmunds Private Capital, LLC (``Applicant'').
    Relevant Advisers Act Sections: Exemption requested under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Advisers Act from section 203(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of
section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the term
``investment adviser.''
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 13, 2018, and
amended on October 17, 2018, April 11, 2019, September 23, 2019,
December 19, 2019, and January 29, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving the Applicant with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 19, 2020 and should be accompanied
by proof of service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or,
for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the
Advisers Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the
matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
may request notification of a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: S.
exception occurred on : 2020-09141.htm
Brian Farmer, Esq., law.com">[email protected]law.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-3038 or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website either at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a multi-generational single-family office that
provides services to the family and descendants of Henry Garnett
Chesley. Applicant is wholly-owned by Family Clients and is exclusively
controlled by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities in
compliance with rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 (``Family Office Rule''). For
purposes of the application, the term ``Chesley Family'' means the
lineal descendants of Henry Garnett Chesley, their spouses or spousal
equivalents, and all other persons and entities that qualify as Family
Clients as defined in paragraph (d)(4) of the Family Office Rule.\1\
Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as defined in the Family
Office Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Specifically, Applicant is wholly-owned and exclusively
controlled by Paul C. Edmunds II, a lineal descendant of Henry
Garnett Chesley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicant provides both advisory and non-advisory services
(collectively, the ``Services'') to members of the Chesley Family. Any
Service provided by Applicant that relates to investment advice about
securities or may otherwise be construed as advisory in nature is
considered an ``Advisory Service.''
    3. Prior to forming Applicant, Paul C. Edmunds was associated with
a broker-dealer and afterwards a registered investment adviser
(``Predecessor RIA'') that for approximately 24 years managed
substantially all of the advisory accounts of the Chesley Family and
the accounts of the Additional Family Clients (as defined below).
Effective as of September, 2015, Paul C. Edmunds terminated his
association with the Predecessor RIA and formed Applicant. Commencing
October 1, 2015, the advisory accounts of the Family Clients and the
Additional Family Clients managed by the Predecessor RIA were
transitioned to Applicant.
    4. Applicant represents that: (i) Each of the persons served by
Applicant is a Family Client, i.e., Applicant has no investment
advisory clients other than Family Clients as required by paragraph
(b)(1) of the Family Office Rule, with the limited exception that
Applicant provides Services to the Additional Family Clients (as
defined below), (ii) Applicant is owned and controlled in a manner that
complies in all respects with paragraph (b)(2) of the Family Office
Rule, and (iii) Applicant does not hold itself out to the public as an
investment adviser as required by paragraph (b)(3) of the Family Office
Rule. At the time of the application, Applicant represents that Family
Clients that are natural persons account for approximately 67% of the
natural persons to whom Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    5. Applicant provides Services, including Advisory Services, to the
parents of the spouse of Paul C. Edmunds (the ``Additional Family
Clients''). The Additional Family Clients do not have an ownership
interest in Applicant. The assets owned by the Additional Family
Clients

represent approximately 11% of the Applicant's assets under management.
    6. Applicant represents that the Additional Family Clients have
important familial ties to and are an integral part of the Chesley
Family. Applicant maintains that including the Additional Family
Clients in the ``family'' simply recognizes and memorializes the
familial ties and intra-familial relationships that already exist, and
have existed for over two decades, and that the inclusion of the
Additional Family Clients as members of the Chesley Family for which
Applicant provides services will be consistent with the existing
familial relationship among the Family Members.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term
``investment adviser'' to mean ``any person who, for compensation,
engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through
publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or
who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or
promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities . . .''
    2. Applicant falls within the definition of an investment adviser
under section 202(a)(11). The Family Office Rule provides an exclusion
from the definition of investment adviser for which the Applicant would
be eligible but for the provision of Advisory Services to the
Additional Family Clients. Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act requires
investment advisers to register with the Commission. Absent relief,
upon reaching the required level of regulatory assets under management,
Applicant would be subject to registration with the Commission under
section 203(a) of the Advisers Act.
    3. Applicant submits that its relationship with the Additional
Family Clients does not change the nature of the office into that of a
commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, Applicant notes
that if the Additional Family Clients were the parents of a lineal
descendent of Henry Garnett Chesley, rather than the parents of a
spouse of a lineal descendent of Henry Garnett Chesley, there would be
no question that each of them would be a Family Member. Applicant
states that in requesting the order, the office is not attempting to
expand its operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to
which the Advisers Act is designed to apply. Indeed, although the
Additional Family Clients do not fall within the definition of Family
Member, they are considered to be, and are treated as, members of the
Chesley Family.
    4. Mr. Edmunds has managed accounts for the Additional Family
Clients for 24 years. Applicant maintains that, from the perspective of
the Chesley Family, allowing Applicant to provide Services to the
Additional Family Clients is consistent with the family's previous
experience with investment management services provided by Mr. Edmunds
and the existing familial relationship among Family Members.
    5. Applicant also submits that declaring Applicant to be a Family
Office under the Advisers Act is not contrary to the public interest.
Applicant states that the office is a private organization that was
formed to be the ``family office'' for the Chesley Family, and that the
office does not have any public clients. Applicant maintains that the
office's Services are exclusively tailored to the needs of the Chesley
Family and the Additional Family Clients. Applicant argues that the
provision of Advisory Services to the Additional Family Clients, who
have been receiving Advisory Services from Mr. Edmunds in the same
manner as Family Members for over 24 years, does not create any public
interest that is different in any manner than the considerations that
apply to a ``family office'' that complies in all respects with the
Family Office Rule.
    6. Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule largely
codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had previously issued
before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, the Commission recognized in proposing the rule that
the exact representations, conditions, or terms contained in every
exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of general
applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would remain
free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an individual or
entity that did not meet the proposed family client definition, and
that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and issues that are
more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order process where
the Commission can consider the specific facts and circumstances, than
through a rule of general applicability.
    7. Applicant maintains that, based on its unusual circumstances--
providing Services to Family Clients and to the Additional Family
Clients who are relatives who have been considered and treated as
Family Members for 26 years and whose status as clients of Applicant
would not change the nature of Applicant's operations to that of a
commercial advisory business--an exemptive order is appropriate based
on Applicant's specific facts and circumstances.
    8. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests an order declaring
it to be a person not within the intent of section 202(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act. Applicant submits that the order is necessary and
appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection of
investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.

Applicant's Conditions

    1. Applicant will offer and provide Advisory Services only to
Family Clients and to the Additional Family Clients, who generally will
be deemed to be, and be treated as if they are, Family Clients;
provided, however, that the Additional Family Clients will be deemed to
be, and treated as if they are, Family Members for purposes of
paragraph (b)(1) and for purposes of paragraph (d)(4)(vi) of the Family
Office Rule.
    2. Applicant will at all times be wholly-owned by Family Clients
and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more
Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family
Clients' Family Entities) as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the Family
Office Rule.
    3. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members
and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Clients' Family
Entities) will account for at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the
assets for which Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    4. Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from the
definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act set forth in
the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by
the application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09141 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8530-8532]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0893]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals
Processes

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on information collection associated with the
processes available to outside stakeholders to request additional
review of decisions or actions by Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (CDRH) employees.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by May 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before May 7, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of May 7, 2019. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2011-D-0893 for ``Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Appeals Processes.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes

OMB Control Number 0910-0738--Extension

    The guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff; Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Appeals Processes'' \1\ describes the processes available to outside
stakeholders to request additional review of decisions or actions by
CDRH employees. FDA is seeking approval for the reporting burden
associated with requests for additional review of decisions and actions
by CDRH employees as described in the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individuals outside of FDA who disagree with a decision or action
taken by CDRH and wish to have it reviewed or reconsidered have several
processes for resolution from which to choose, including requests for
supervisory review of an action, petitions, and hearings. Of these, by
far the most commonly used is a request for supervisory review under
Sec.  [thinsp]10.75 (21 CFR 10.75) (``10.75 appeal''). Section 517A of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360g-1),
added by section 603 of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act,
includes requirements pertaining to the process and timelines for 10.75
appeals of ``significant decisions'' regarding 510(k) premarket
notifications, applications for premarket approvals (PMAs), and
applications for investigational device exemptions (IDEs).
    A request for review under Sec.  [thinsp]10.75 should be based on
the information that was already present in the administrative file at
the time of the decision that is being reviewed as provided in Sec.
[thinsp]10.75(d). Section 517A of the FD&C Act refers to significant
decisions regarding the information in the administrative file for
premarket notification (section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360(k))), PMA (section 515 (21 U.S.C. 360e)), and IDE (section 520(g)
(21 U.S.C. 360j(g))) submissions that is collected under existing
regulations that specify the information manufacturers must submit so
that FDA may properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical
devices. The information collections associated with these regulations
are currently approved by the OMB as follows: The collections of
information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E (premarket notification) have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814 (premarket approval) have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information
in 21 CFR part 812 (investigational device exemption) have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0078.
    While CDRH already possesses in the administrative file the
information that would form the basis of a decision on a matter under
appeal, the submission of particular information regarding the request
itself and the data and information relied on by the requestor in the
appeal would facilitate timely resolution of the decision under review.
The guidance describes the collection of information not expressly
specified under existing regulations such as the submission of the
request for review, minor clarifications as part of the request, and
supporting information.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                        Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDRH Appeals processes guidance document...........................              35                1               35                8              280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects a
decrease of 15 responses and a corresponding overall decrease of 120
hours. We attribute this adjustment to a decrease in the number of
submissions we received over the last few years.

    Dated: March 4, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-04207 Filed 3-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Memorandum To: Ashley Allen, USEPA From: Elizabeth Strange, Stratus Consulting Inc.

Date: 10/ 24/ 2005 Subject: Summary Descriptions of Facilities with Impingement and Entrainment Studies Collected Since Proposal of the Section 316( b) Phase III Rule 1. Introduction To support rule development efforts under section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act, EPA's Engineering and Analysis Division is developing national estimates of the impingement and entrainment ( I& E) of aquatic organisms in and through cooling water intake structures. 1 To assist in this effort, Stratus Consulting and Tetra Tech, Inc. have assembled studies of I& E from facilities throughout the U. S with cooling water intake structures. This memorandum provides summary descriptions of facilities with I& E studies that have been assembled since the proposal of the section 316( b) Phase III rule in November 2004. The facilities described in this memo have studies that meet the analytical requirements described in The Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III facilities. 2 2. Facility Descriptions This section summarizes information on the study facilities from the time periods of their I& E studies. The descriptions provided in this section are based on information available from facility documents3 and technical data compiled during EPA's survey of facilities with cooling water intake structures. 4 In some cases, the available facility documents provided a minimal description of the facility, and this is reflected in the summaries for those facilities.

1 See Part 1 of The Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities ( EDocket Document ID # OW 2004 0002 0016). 2 See Part 1 of The Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities ( EDocket Document ID # OW 2004 0002 0016). 3. See reference list. 4. The technical data are provided in the Section 316( b) Survey Questionnaire Database ( DCN # 4 0016D). Stratus Consulting Page 2 2.1 Facilities Within Scope of the Phase III Rule Delaware City Refinery/ Motiva Enterprises The Delaware City Refinery, operated by Motiva Enterprises, is located on the west side of the Delaware River estuary in New Castle County, Delaware ( Normandeau Associates, 2000). This portion of the estuary is considered a " transition zone," characterized by variable salinity, high turbidity, and low biological productivity. There is a shipping channel in the deep waters directly offshore of the facility's intake structure.

The facility withdraws water from the Delaware River via Cedar Creek, which is essentially an intake canal used as non contact cooling water for the combined complex that includes the refinery and the Delaware City Power Plant ( Normandeau Associates, 2000). The intake is located at the inland end of Cedar Creek, about one mile from the Delaware River. Once through cooling water is discharged back into the Delaware River through two " guard basins" upstream of the mouth of Cedar Creek. Due to heavy siltation, the canal must be dredged twice a year to maintain adequate flow to the intake during low tide conditions. A trash fence transecting Cedar Creek is used to keep large debris from the intake.

At the time of I& E sampling in 1998 and 1999 the plant was configured as follows ( Normandeau Associates, 2000). Water enters the intake through six unscreened, submerged, 8 foot ( ft) square openings. Water is pumped through the refinery using one half size and nine full size circulating water pumps that serve both the refinery and the power plant for which the refinery provides cooling water. Pumping rate varies with seasonal demand and operations at both facilities. Nine vertical traveling screens are located within the intake in front of the circulating water pumps. The wire mesh pans of five of the traveling screens have 3/ 8 inch ( in) mesh and the other four have 3/ 16 in mesh. Each screen is rotated at about 10 ft per minute and cleaned once every 8 hr in summer, with less frequent cleaning in winter. Average approach velocity to the screens is about 0.6 ft per second at the full pumping rate at mean low tide.

Species impinged and entrained include: Atlantic croaker, white perch, blueback herring, hogchoker, brown bullhead, American shad, alewife, northern pipefish, yellow perch, bluefish, black drum, channel catfish, striped anchovy, silvery minnow, spot, bluegill, spotted hake, Atlantic silverside, mummichog, spotfin shiner, Atlantic herring, crevalle jack, white catfish, green sunfish, summer flounder, spotfin butterflyfish, American eel, largemouth bass, rainbow trout, brown trout, rock bass, white sucker, carp, banded killifish, pumpkinseed, oyster toadfish, black crappie, tessellated darter, yellow bullhead, gizzard shad, white perch, weakfish, alewife, spot, hogchoker, American shad, bluefish, yellow perch, summer flounder, largemouth bass, striped anchovy, black drum, channel catfish, Atlantic silverside, brown bullhead, silvery minnow, pumpkinseed, American eel, northern pipefish, yellow bullhead, inland silverside, spotfin shiner, tessellated darter, banded killifish, bluegill, sea lamprey, black crappie, rock bass, Stratus Consulting Page 3 goldfish, redfin pickerel, fathead minnow, smallmouth bass, oyster toadfish, white crappie, striped bass, bay anchovy, and weakfish.

GE Aircraft The General Electric Aircraft Engine plant ( also known as GE Lynn or GE Riverworks) is a manufacturing facility located on the Saugus River in Lynn, Massachusetts ( Marine Research, 1997). It is classified as an estuary/ tidal river facility for the purposes of EPA's analyses for the 316( b) rulemaking. The average intake flow at the facility is 31.08 million gallons per day ( MGD). At the time of I& E sampling in 1995 and 1996, the 018 intake at the facility contained three traveling screens, one of which operated on a continuous basis depending on which circulating water pumps were in use.

Species impinged and entrained include: little skate, American eel, Atlantic cod, Atlantic tomcod, mummichog, Atlantic silverside, threespine stickleback, northern pipefish, shorthorn sculpin, lumpfish, tautog, cunner, sand lance, butterfish, windowpane, winter flounder, yellow tail, little skate, American eel, blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic herring, chain pickerel, rainbow smelt, Atlantic cod, red hake, Atlantic silverside, fourspine stickleback, threespine stickleback, black spotted stickleback, northern pipefish, northern searobin, lumpfish, scup, Atlantic mackerel, grubby, fourbeard rockling, and rock gunnel.

Pfizer Pfizer is a manufacturing facility located in Groton, Connecticut on the southeastern portion of the Thames River, a tidal estuary formed by the confluence of the Shetucket and Yantic Rivers ( Parsons Engineering Science, 1997). All of the salt water withdrawn from the Thames River for cooling enters the plant through a salt water pump house. The salt water distribution system consists of a series of 18 36 in diameter pipes.

Species impinged and entrained include: cunner, bay anchovy, tautog, windowpane, Atlantic menhaden, fourbeard rockling, unidentified hake, cunner, Atlantic mackerel, hogchoker, scup, butterfish, unidentified searobin, northern searobin, rock gunnel, grubby, winter flounder, and American sand lance.

Putnam The Putnam facility is an electric generating facility located on the east side of the St. John's River in Putnam County, Florida ( Applied Biology, 1979). It is classified as a freshwater river facility for the purposes of EPA's analyses for the 316( b) rulemaking. At the time of I& E sampling in 1979, the combined cycle units of the plant consisted of a gas turbine portion and a steam generator portion. The gas turbine portion doesn't require cooling water, and the closed cycle cooling for the condensers of the steam generator portion is provided by a six cell Stratus Consulting Page 4 mechanical draft cooling tower. The use of closed cycle cooling is reflected in the facility's low intake flow of 2.6 MGD.

Species impinged and entrained include: white catfish and blue crab 2.2 Facilities Within Scope of the Phase II Rule Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company ( BRESCO)

The Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company, known as BRESCO, is a generator located near the upper middle branch of Baltimore Harbor at the mouth of the tidally influenced Gwynns Falls ( EA Engineering Science and Technology, 1987). The facility consists of a refuse fueled electric unit and uses once through cooling to transfer waste heat from the condensers to the harbor.

The shoreline intake structure of the BRESCO facility is located on the north shore of Gwynns Falls about 900 ft upstream of the middle branch of Baltimore Harbor ( EA Engineering Science and Technology, 1987). At the time of I& E sampling in 1985 86, two vertical turbine pumps circulated water through the condensers and other heat exchangers. Cooling water passed through bar racks spaced 3 in apart. Three 8 ft wide vertical traveling screens with 3/ 8 in wire mesh were used to remove debris and fish before entering the circulating water pumps and condensers.

At the time of I& E sampling, during the year 1985 86, water quality in the vicinity of the BRESCO facility was considered degraded because of industrial and urban development ( EA Engineering Science and Technology, 1987). Fish sampling at the time indicated that poor water and substrate quality contributed to " markedly reduced" abundances of fish populations in the upper harbor. In the middle branch, only pollution tolerant species were abundant.

Species impinged and entrained include: Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, mummichog, inland silverside, Atlantic silverside, white perch, spot, Atlantic croaker, winter flounder, blue crab, American eel, alewife, gizzard shad, brown trout, goldfish, spottail shiner, catfish spp, brown bullhead, striped cusk eel, striped killifish, silverside spp, pumpkinseed, sunfish spp, and yellow perch.

Brunswick Brunswick is a nuclear powered generator located on Cape Fear River in North Carolina ( Schwartz et al., 1979; CP& L, 1985, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001).

Species impinged and entrained include: Atlantic menhaden, spot, anchovies, Gobiosoma spp., spot, Anchoa spp., pinfish, tonguefish, star drum, black cheek tonguefish, Stratus Consulting Page 5 weakfish, silver perch, bay anchovy, white shrimp, brown shrimp, pink shrimp, blue crab, Gobionellus spp., Portunidae, lesser blue crab, Atlantic silverside, hardback shrimp, weakfish, blue crab, spotted seatrout, striped anchovy, threadfin shad, and striped mullet.

Callaway Callaway is a nuclear generator located on the Missouri River in Missouri.

Species impinged and entrained include: black bullhead, bluegill, bigmouth buffalo, carp, channel catfish, crappie spp., freshwater drum, gizzard shad, green sunfish, bluntnose minnow, river carpsucker, sea bass, shovelnose sturgeon, sucker spp., sunfish, and walleye.

Gould Street Gould Street is an electric generator located on the north shore of the middle branch of the Patapsco River at the head of an embayment in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland ( Ecological Analysts, 1979). Water quality was degraded in this area at the time of I& E studies in 1978, and fish populations were " markedly reduced." Species such as Atlantic croaker and hogchoker were generally absent, while white perch and tidewater silverside were found in comparatively large numbers.

In 1978 the plant consisted of one oil fired steam turbine generating unit ( Ecological Analysts, 1979). The plant operates mostly during peak load hours only, usually between 8 a. m. and midnight, with frequent periods of low power demand in spring and fall when the plant doesn't operate. Two circulating water pumps withdraw cooling water from the Patapsco River. A curtain wall extends about 10 ft below the mean low water level. Cooling water passes through 3.7 in trash rack openings and through a vertical traveling screen with 0.14 in2 mesh before entering the circulating water pumps.

Species impinged and entrained include: American eel, blueback herring, Atlantic menhaden, gizzard shad, bay anchovy, spottail shiner, tidewater silverside, Atlantic silverside, silverside spp., white perch, striped bass, pumpkinseed, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, winter flounder, blue crab, mud crab, yellow perch, and naked goby.

Riverside Riverside is an electric generating facility located in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland ( Ecological Analysts, 1980). During the time of I& E sampling in 1978 1979, the plant operated from 6 a. m. to 10 p. m. only, and was not operated at all during low demand periods.

Species impinged and entrained include: American eel, blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic menhaden, gizzard shad, bay anchovy, goldfish, brown bullhead, channel catfish, red Stratus Consulting Page 6 hake, mummichog, rough silverside, tidewater silverside, Atlantic silverside, silverside spp., northern pipefish, white perch, striped bass, pumpkinseed, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, winter flounder, hogchoker, blue crab, blue crab peeler, mud crab, bay anchovy, spottail shiner, yellow perch, and naked goby.

St. Lucie St. Lucie is a nuclear powered electric generating facility on Hutchinson Island, about midway between the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie inlets on Florida's lower east coast ( Applied Biology, 1978). The plant is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Indian River, a shallow lagoonal estuary.

The facility withdraws cooling water from the Atlantic Ocean through a vertical intake structure located about 1,200 ft offshore. The intake is covered with a concrete velocity cap, the top of which is about 8 ft below the water's surface. Cooling water is drawn into an intake canal through a pipe buried under sand dunes, and then the canal carries the water another 5,000 ft to the plant.

Species impinged and entrained include: shrimp, blue crab, stone crab, spiny lobster, herring, anchovy, jack, mojarra, grunt, croaker, cutlassfish, and flatfish.

Three Mile Island Three Mile Island is a nuclear generator located on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania ( Nardacci, 1978).

Species impinged and entrained include: stoneroller, river chub, creek chub, fallfish, carp, comely shiner, spottail shiner, spotfin shiner, quillback, white sucker, redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, bluegill, tessellated darter, banded darter, shield darter, walleye, channel catfish, swallowtail shiner, bluntnose minnow, northern hog sucker, shorthead redhorse, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, margined mudtom, rock bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and black crappie.

Yorktown The Yorktown Power Station is located on the south bank of the tidal York River, about 4 miles upstream of the river mouth and directly downstream from the mouth of Wormley Creek ( Virginia Electric and Power Company, 1979). Cooling water is withdrawn from York River via an intake canal bounded by jetties that extend about 1,200 ft into the river. During the time of I& E sampling in 1977, the shoreline intake structure consisted of a series of eight separate embayments, each with a stationary trash rack, a traveling water screen, and a circulating water pump. Stratus Consulting Page 7 Species impinged and entrained include: bay anchovy, hogchoker, Atlantic silverside, northern pipefish, green goby, goby spp., spot, mummichog, blueback herring, spotted hake, Atlantic menhaden, feather blenny, red drum, summer flounder, harvestfish, weakfish, sheepshead minnow, oyster toadfish, smallmouth flounder, dusky pipefish, alewife, rough silversides, silver perch, skilletfish, Atlantic croaker, white perch, northern searobin, spotted seatrout, striped killifish, northern stargazer, butterfish, inshore lizardfish, windowpane, bluefish, banded killifish, tidewater silversides, Atlantic needlefish, American eel, northern puffer, lined seahorse, American shad, threespine stickleback, winter flounder, seaboard goby, fourspine stickleback, striped bass, orange filefish, naked goby, crevalle jack, black sea bass, Atlantic spadefish, white mullet, banded drum, striped mullet, and southern kingfish.

3. Summary Table 1 summarizes key technical information about each of the facilities profiled in Section 2 above. Stratus Consulting Page 8 Facility Name Phase of Rulemaking Location a Waterbody Type a Design Intake Flow ( MGD) a Average Intake Flow ( MGD) a Years of I& E Datab Manufacturer or Generatorc Delaware Refinery / Motiva Enterprises 3 Delaware River,

DE Estuary/ tidal river 492 354.67 1998, 1999 Mfgr GE Aircraft 3 Saugus River,

Lynn, MA Estuary/ tidal river 301 31.08 1995, 1996 Mfgr Pfizer 3 Thames River,

CT Estuary/ tidal river 161 52.67 1977 1978 Mfgr Putnam 3 St. John's River, FL Freshwater river/ stream 7.11 2.6 1979 Gen BRESCO 2 Baltimore, MD near the upper Middle Branch of Baltimore Harbor Estuary/ tidal river 61.63 26.6 1985 1986 Gen Brunswick 2 Cape Fear River, NC Estuary/ tidal river 1,911.23 1,426.89 1974, 1975,

1976, 1977,1996,

1998, 1999,

2000 Gen Callaway 2 Missouri River,

MO Freshwater river/ stream 52.01 24.5 1984, 1985 Gen Gould Street 2 Baltimore Harbor, MD Estuary/ tidal river 607.94 99.9 1978 Gen Riverside 2 Patapsco River,

MD Estuary/ tidal river 84 0.17 1978 79 Gen St. Lucied 2 Atlantic Ocean,

FL Ocean 1977 Gen Stratus Consulting Page 9 Three Mile Island 2 Susquehanna River, PA Freshwater river/ stream 51.35 24.15 1977 Gen Yorktownd 2 York River, VA Estuary/ tidal river 1977 Gen Sources:

a. Section 316( b) Survey Questionnaire Database ( DCN # 4 0016D).

b. Facility 316( b) study ( see reference list for complete citations).

c. Phase III_ SBREFA_ Determinations to TT_ 101205. xls assembled by Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, and provided to Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, CO, by Tetra Tech, Fairfax, VA, on 10/ 12/ 05.

d. Intake flow is not provided because the facility considers this information to be " confidential business information" ( CBI). Stratus Consulting Page 10 4. References Applied Biology. 1978. Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power & Light Co. St. Lucie Plant. Annual Report 1977, Volume 1. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Company. March.

Applied Biology. 1979. Report on Studies Conducted in Compliance with Condition 21 of the Putnam Plant Site Certification. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida. November. Atlanta, GA.

CP& L. 1985. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power & Light Company. August.

CP& L. 1996. Brunswick Nuclear Plant 1996 Environmental Monitoring Report. Carolina Power & Light Company.

CP& L. 1998. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1997 Biological Monitoring Report. Carolina Power & Light Company.

CP& L. 1999. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1998 Biological Monitoring Report. Carolina Power & Light Company.

CP& L. 2000. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1999 Biological Monitoring Report. Carolina Power & Light Company.

CP& L. 2001. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2000 Biological Monitoring Report. Carolina Power & Light Company.

EA Engineering Science and Technology. 1987. Baltimore RESCO Facility Impingement and Hydrothermal Studies Final Report July 1985  June 1986. Prepared for Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company. April.

Ecological Analysts Inc. 1979. Gould Street Power Plant Impingement, Entrainment, and Hydrothermal Studies Final Report, August 1978  August 1979. Prepared for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. November. http:// www. esm. versar. com/ pprp/ bibliography/ sec14. htm.

Ecological Analysts. 1980. Riverside Power Plant Impingement, Entrainment and Hydrothermal Studies Final Report, August 1973  August 1979. Prepared for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. January. http:// www. esm. versar. com/ pprp/ bibliography/ sec14. htm. Stratus Consulting Page 11 Marine Research. 1997. Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring at General Electric River Works Facility, Lynn, Mass. Final Report November 1994  October 1996. January 17. Revised August 22, 1997. Falmouth, MA.

Nardacci, G. A. 1978. An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Annual Report for 1977. Prepared by Ichthyological Associates, Inc. for Metropolitan Edison Company. April. Ithaca, NY.

Normandeau Associates. 2000. Impingement and Entrainment at the Cooling Water Intake Structure of the Delaware City Refinery, April 1998  March 2000. Prepared for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Delaware City Refinery, Delaware City, DE. August.

Parsons Engineering Science. 1997. Cooling Water Biofouling Control Study at Pfizer Inc  Groton, Connecticut. Prepared for Pfizer, Inc, Groton, Connecticut. September. Revised March 1998. Canton, MA.

Schwartz, F. J., P. Pershbacher, L. Davidson, C. Simpson, M. McAdams, K. Sandoy, J. Duncan, and D. Mason. 1979. A Summary Report 1973 1977: An Ecological Study of Fishes and Invertebrate Macrofauna Utilizing the Cape Fear River Estuary, Carolina Beach Inlet, and Adjacent Atlantic Ocean. Vol. XIV. Prepared for Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina. January 1.

Union Electric Company. 1986. Callaway Plant: Evaluation of Cooling Water Intake Impacts on the Missouri River. Prepared for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. July.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1979. Yorktown Power Station, Yorktown, Virginia: Environmental Studies  1977, Conducted According to Condition 1 of Special Conditions, Permit No. VA 0004103. Submitted to State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia.


1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2004 SUBJECT: Summary of State NO X Requirements for Stationary Engines FROM: Bradley Nelson Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc.

TO: Sims Roy, EPA/ Emission Standards Division/ Combustion Group This memorandum summarizes the requirements for stationary engines to meet new nitrogen oxides ( NO X) regulations in State and local areas. Each of the States or local areas that have adopted NO X reduction regulations were contacted to get information on what facilities with stationary engines are doing to meet the new NO X limits. In addition, cost effectiveness estimates of the control technologies were obtained.

Texas De Grandfathering Sources Houston/ Galeston Non Attainment Area cap and Trade Program The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has developed a Voluntary Emission Reduction Permit ( VERP) for the permitting of existing significant sources ( i. e. grandfathered facilities).

These sources are required to complete permits that reduce the emissions of NO X, and volatile organic compounds ( VOC) using generally available control technology ( GACT). The Texas Clean Air Act defines GACT as a control technology that the Commission has found to be generally achievable for facilities in the area of the same type, considering the age and remaining useful life of the facility. In general, GACT will fall somewhere between 10 year old Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) and what is considered current tier one BACT. To meet the required NO X reductions many of the owner/ operators of stationary engines have either shut down, taken a limit on the number of hours of operation, installed selective catalytic reduction, 2 added exhaust gas recirculation, made timing adjustments, or plan to purchase newer low NO X emission engines. In the Houston/ Galveston non attainment area, owner/ operators are expected to replace older non compliant engines with new engines that meet the 0.5 grams per horsepower standard.

Louisiana The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is requiring owner/ operators of stationary engines to implement reasonable available control technology ( RACT) to reduce emissions of NO X in the Baton Rouge non attainment area. Facilities in the non attainment areas have used combustion modifications to meet the new NO X limits. The combustion modifications include injection timing retard, exhaust gas recirculation, and the addition of turbo boosters. Some owner/ operators plan to install new low NO X emission engines to replace the older engines.

Eastern States Phase II NOX SIP Call Permitting personnel from North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were contacted to find out what measures were taken to reduce emissions from stationary engines in their State Implementation Plan ( SIP) to respond to the Phase II NO X SIP Call. Currently many of the owner/ operators of large stationary engines are retrofitting their engine with selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) to meet the new NO X reduction requirements. The agencies have generally estimated the cost effectiveness of SCR to be in the range of $ 500 to $ 2500 per ton of NO X removed. New York has estimated the capital cost for a SCR system for a 475 horsepower engine is $ 53,000 and for a 550 horsepower engine, $ 56,000. Owner/ operators of smaller stationary engines are typically taking a limit on the number of hours of operation of their stationary engine to meet the new NO X levels. Some owner/ operators plan to purchase new low NO X emission engines to meet the standards.

Philadelphia Area Small Source NOX Rule 3 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is currently proposing the " Small Sources of NO X, Cement Kilns, and Large Internal Combustion Engine" regulation. For diesel stationary engines greater than 1000 horsepower the NO X limit would be 2.3 grams per horsepower hour. If emission reductions are needed, they can be achieved by installing selective catalytic reduction control equipment, doing combustion modifications, or by switching fuels.

Costs to reduce emissions have been estimated by the DEP to be in the range of $ 1,700 to $ 4,400 per ton of NO X removed based on the Ozone Transport Commission ( OTC) cost estimates. The cost effectiveness numbers were calculated using an 1990 model year uncontrolled engine as the baseline.


[Federal Register: July 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39712-39714]
[DOCID:fr12jy10-76]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62450; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Expand Its
$1 Strike Program

July 2, 2010.
    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 July 2, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4 Commentary .04 to expand
the Exchange's $1 Strike Price Program (the ``$1 Strike Program'' or
``Program'') to allow the Exchange to select 150 individual stocks on
which options may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. The text of
the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A
copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office, on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to expand the $1 Strike
Program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved the Pilot Program on June 17, 2003.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48045 (June 17, 2003) 68 FR
37594 (June 24, 2003). The Pilot Program was subsequently extended.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49818 (June 4, 2004), 69 FR
33440 (June 15, 2004) (extending the Pilot Program until August 4,
2004); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50152 (August 5, 2004),
69 FR 49931 (August 12, 2004) (extending the Pilot Program until
June 5, 2005); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51767 (May 31,
2005), 70 FR 33244 (June 7, 2005) (extending the Pilot Program until
June 5, 2006); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53807 (May 15,
2006), 71 FR 29373 (May 22, 2006) (extending the Pilot Program until
June 5, 2007); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55718 (May 7,
2007), 72 FR 27346 (May 15, 2007) (extending the Pilot Program until
June 5, 2008). The Program was subsequently expanded and permanently
approved in 2008. See Exchange Act Release 57130 (January 10, 2008)
73 FR 3302 (January 17, 2008) The Program was last expanded in 2009.
See Exchange Act Release No. 59587 (March 17, 2009) 74 FR 12414
(March 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The $1 Strike Program currently allows NYSE Arca to select a total
of 55 individual stocks on which option series may be listed at $1
strike price intervals. In order to be eligible for selection into the
Program, the underlying stock must close below $50 in its primary
market on the previous trading day. If selected for the Program, the
Exchange may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $1 to $50, but no
$1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the
underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous
day. The Exchange may also list $1 strikes on any other option class
designated by another securities exchange that employs a similar
Program under their respective rules. The Exchange may not list long-
term option series (``LEAPS'') \4\ at $1 strike price intervals for any
class selected for the Program, except as specified in subparagraph (c)
to Commentary .04 to Rule 6.4.\5\ The Exchange is also restricted from
listing series with $1 intervals within $0.50 of an existing strike
price in the same series, except that strike prices of $2, $3, and $4
shall be permitted within $0.50 of an existing strike price for classes
also selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ LEAPS are long-term options that generally have up to
thirty-nine months from the time they are listed until expiration.
See Rule 6.4(e) Long-Term Equity Option Series (LEAPS[supreg]).
    \5\ Commentary .04(c) states that the Exchange may list $1
strike prices up to $5 in LEAPS in up to 200 option classes in
individual stocks. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61035
(November 19, 2009).
    \6\ Regarding the $0.50 Strike Program, which allows $0.50
strike price intervals for options on stocks trading at or below
$3.00, see Commentary .04 to Rule 6.4 and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60721 (September 25, 2009), 74 FR 50858 (October 1,
2009). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61920 (April 15,
2010), 75 FR 21092 (April 22, 2010) (allowing concurrent listing of
$3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that participate in both the $0.50
Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to expand the Program to allow NYSE Arca
to select a total of 150 individual stocks on which option series may
be listed at $1 strike price intervals. The existing restrictions on
listing $1 strikes would continue, i.e., no $1 strike price may be
listed that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing
price in its primary market on the previous day, and NYSE Arca is
restricted from listing any series that would result in strike prices
being $0.50 apart (unless an option class is selected to participate in
both the $1 Strike Program and the $0.50 Strike Program).
    As stated in the Commission order that initially approved NYSE
Arca's Program and in subsequent extensions and expansions of the
Program,\7\ NYSE Arca believes that $1 strike price intervals provide
investors with greater flexibility in the trading of equity options
that overlie lower price stocks by allowing investors to establish
equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their
investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra Note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the time that the $1 Strike Program was a pilot, the
Exchange submitted three pilot reports to the Commission in which the
Exchange discussed, among other things, the strength and efficacy of
the Program based upon the steady increase in volume and open interest
of options traded on the Exchange at $ 1 strike price intervals; and
that the Program had not and, in the future, should not create capacity
problems for NYSE Arca or the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') systems.\8\ This has not changed. Moreover, the number of $1
strike options traded on the Exchange has continued to increase since
the inception of the Program such that these options are now among some

of the most popular products traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49818 (June 4,
2004), 69 FR 33440 (June 15, 2004); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 50152 (August 5, 2004), 69 FR 49931 (August 12, 2004);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51767 (May 31, 2005), 70 FR
33244 (June 7, 2005); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53807 (May
15, 2006), 71 FR 29373 (May 22, 2006); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 55718 (May 7, 2007), 72 FR 27346 (May 15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that market conditions have led to an
increase in the number of securities trading below $50 warranting the
proposed expansion of the $1 Strike Program.\9\ In addition, the
Exchange notes that this filing is based on a filing previously
submitted by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc (``PHLX'') that the Commission
recently noticed.\10\ With regard to previous expansions of the
Program, the Commission has approved proposals from the options
exchanges that employ a $1 Strike Program in lockstep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 59587 (March 17, 2009) 74
FR 12414 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-10) (more than five-fold
increase in the number of individual stocks on which options may be
listed at $1 intervals).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62151 (May 21,
2010), 75 FR 30078 (May 28, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, in addition to options classes that are
trading pursuant to the $1 strike programs of options exchanges, there
are also options trading at $1 strike intervals on the Exchange on over
170 exchange-traded fund shares (``ETFs'') and exchange-traded notes
(ETNs''),\11\ ETF and ETN options trading at $1 intervals have not,
however, negatively impacted the system capacity of the Exchange or
OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commentary .05 to Rule 6.4 allowing $1 strike price
intervals for ETF and ETN options where the strike price is $200 or
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, NYSE
Arca has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and OPRA have the
necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic
associated with the listing and trading of an expanded number of series
in the $1 Strike Program.
    The Exchange believes that the $1 Strike Program has provided
investors with greater trading opportunities and flexibility and the
ability to more closely tailor their investment and risk management
strategies and decisions to the movement of the underlying security.
Furthermore, the Exchange has not detected any material proliferation
of illiquid options series resulting from the narrower strike price
intervals. For these reasons, the Exchange requests an expansion of the
current Program and the opportunity to provide investors with
additional strikes for investment, trading, and risk management
purposes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) \12\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) \13\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that expanding
the current $1 Strike Program will result in a continuing benefit to
investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their
investment decisions in a greater number of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\16\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62420 (June 30,
2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-72) (order approving expansion of $1 strike
program to 150 classes).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

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-NYSEArca-2010-66 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-NYSEArca-2010-66. 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 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-66 and should
be submitted on or before August 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16850 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P