[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3408-3409]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2533-059]

City of Brainerd Public Utility Commission; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application to amend license.
    b. Project No.: 2533-059.
    c. Date Filed: August 5, 2015.
    d. Applicant: City of Brainerd Public Utility Commission.
    e. Name of Project: Brainerd Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Mississippi River in
Crow Wing County, Minnesota.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Magnuson, Superintendent, Brainerd
Public Utilities, 8027 Highland Scenic Rd., P.O. Box 373, Brainerd, MN
56401<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the date of issuance of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using
the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2533-059) on
any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to add a sixth,
600-kilowatt axial flow modular turbine/generator unit into a bay
currently occupied by a non-functional, unlicensed, double-runner
Francis turbine within the powerhouse. Installing the new unit would
not change project operation and would not require any significant
construction or modification to the existing civil works at the
project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading,
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01121 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 20779]
[FR Doc No: E9-10339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7818; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-
2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2006-25246]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 23 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on April 20, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 23 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Lucas R. Aleman, Rodger B. Anders, John D.
Bolding, Jr., Timothy E. Coultas, Michael P. Curtin, Jimmy W.
Deadwyler, William E. Dolson, Richard L. Elyard, Richard L. Elyard,
James K. Holmes, Christopher J. Kane, William R. Mayfield, William R.
Mayfield, Kirby G. Oathout, John J. Payne, James R. Petre, Zeljko
Popovac, Jerald W. Rehnke, William E. Reveal, James R. Rieck, Duane L.
Riendeau, Richie J. Schwendy, and Janusz Tyrpien.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: April 29, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-10339 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4403-4407]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02542]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0542; FRL-9989-59-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Florida's October 3, 2017, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in any other state. In this
action, EPA is proposing to determine that Florida's SIP contains
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0542 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Ward can also be reached via telephone at (404) 562-
9140 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08
parts per

million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes),
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision,
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two
provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This
proposed action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for Florida for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
    \2\ See 78 FR 65559 (November 1, 2013); 79 FR 50554 (August 25,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On October 3, 2017, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) provided a SIP submittal \3\ to EPA to address the
interstate transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the Florida SIP. Florida made this submission to certify that its SIP
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within
the State which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state, and therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\
Florida's certification is based on emissions generating activities,
air quality monitoring and modeling data, and SIP-approved and state
provisions regulating emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)) within the
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This submittal supplements an October 31, 2011 submittal
addressing other infrastructure SIP elements for Florida for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 65559, 79 FR 50554. Although the
transmittal letter is dated October 3, 2017, EPA did not receive
Florida's submittal until October 12, 2017.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rule that finalized
findings of failure to submit with regard to the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states, including Florida, with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961. The findings of
failure to submit established a two-year deadline for EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport SIP
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA promulgating
a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these
requirements. Additional background on the findings of failure to
submit--including Florida's finding--can be found in the preamble to
the final rule findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504),
EPA took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern
states \6\ by finalizing an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update''). The
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May-
September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of ozone
pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states
(including Florida) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind
states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further
emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4,
2015 requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality
modeling results that were used for the proposed CSAPR Update. See
80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New
Mexico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The CSAPR framework
establishes the following four-step process to address the requirements
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred
to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the
downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air
quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states
that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by
adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the
CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine whether
states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained
below, the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the conclusions
provided in FDEP's October 3, 2017, interstate transport SIP for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were

at or above a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone
NAAQS). EPA determined that one percent was an appropriate threshold to
use in this analysis because there were important, even if relatively
small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance
receptors from multiple upwind states at that threshold.\7\ See 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016). For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air
quality screening threshold of 0.75 ppb (one percent of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and
the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with
impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to
contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal to or exceeded the one-
percent threshold, that state was considered ``linked'' to the downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were
further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). See
technical support document for the August 8, 2011 final rule
``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP'' approvals''
located at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rule for the CSAPR Update, the air
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively),
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case
emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance
sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the
CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic
Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution
of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in
each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs
were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous
United States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of
Canada and Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the
final CSAPR Update for Florida are the most up-to-date information EPA
has developed to inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages
to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the
Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated
that Florida's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment
receptor in 2017 was 0.71 ppb, which is below the one-percent
threshold. Accordingly, Florida is not ``linked'' to any nonattainment
receptors in EPA's modeling. Although the modeling for the proposed
CSAPR Update did not link Florida's emissions to any maintenance
receptors, the updated modeling conducted for the final CSAPR Update
indicated that Florida's largest contribution to any projected downwind
maintenance-only site in 2017 would be 0.75 ppb.\9\ EPA's modeling
indicated an average contribution at the 0.75 ppb threshold to the 2017
design values at two receptors in Houston, Texas (i.e., Harris County
sites 482010024 and 482011034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and
Appendix D located at available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received a comment on the CSAPR Update proposal \10\ stating
that the version of CAMx used for the proposal modeling
(CAMx v6.11) did not include the most recent halogen
chemistry that would affect ozone concentrations in saltwater marine
atmospheres and transport of ozone from Florida to receptors in Texas.
The commenter stated that EPA should include this chemistry in modeling
for the final rule. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). A report by the
CAMx model developer on the impact of modeling with the
latest CAMx halogen chemistry indicates that the updated
chemistry results in lower modeled ozone in air transported over
saltwater marine environments for multiple days.\11\ Specifically, the
report notes that on days with multi-day transport across the Gulf of
Mexico, modeling with the updated chemistry could lower 8-hour daily
maximum ozone concentrations by up to 2 to 4 ppb in locations in
eastern Texas, including Houston. Air parcel trajectories for
individual days used in EPA's calculation of the contribution from
Florida to the Houston receptors confirm that on days with high modeled
transport from Florida to the receptors in Houston, air travels for
multiple days over the Gulf of Mexico from Florida before reaching the
receptors in Houston.\12\ In the final rule modeling, EPA was not able
to explicitly account for the updated chemistry because this chemistry
had not yet been included by the model developer in the source
apportionment tool in CAMx at the time the modeling was
performed for this rule. However, because Florida's maximum impact on
receptors in Houston, Texas, is exactly

at the 0.75 ppb threshold, the Agency concluded that if it had
performed the final rule modeling with the updated halogen chemistry,
Florida's impact would likely be below this threshold. Therefore, EPA
determined in the CSAPR Update that when this updated halogen chemistry
is considered, there are no identified linkages between Florida and
2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors. As a
result of the modeling, EPA did not finalize a FIP that required
NOX emission reductions from Florida in the CSAPR Update
because EPA's analysis performed to support the final rule does not
indicate that the State is linked to any identified downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors with respect to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Rather, in the CSAPR Update, EPA took final action to
determine that emissions from Florida will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
    \11\ See Yarwood, G., T. Sakulyanontvittaya, O. Nopmongcol, and
B. Koo, 2014. Ozone Depletion by Bromine and Iodine over the Gulf of
Mexico Final Report. Prepared for the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. November 2014. Ramboll Environ International
Corporation, Novato, CA and Yarwood, G., J. Jung, O. Nopmongcol, and
C. Emery, 2012. Improving CAMx Performance in Simulating
Ozone Transport from the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. September 2012. Ramboll Environ
International Corporation, Novato, CA. These studies are available
in the docket for the CSAPR Update Rule as EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0458
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0457, respectively.
    \12\ More details and analysis of the impact of the
CAMx halogen chemistry updates on the contributions from
Florida and other Gulf Coast states can be found in section 4.4 and
Appendix D to the CSAPR Update Modeling TSD available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CSAPR Update addressed the decision from the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015),
remanding for reconsideration certain states' ozone season
NOX emission budgets from the original CSAPR (including
Florida's) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\13\ EPA removed
Florida from the CSAPR ozone season trading program beginning in
2017.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Among other things, the decision remanded CSAPR without
vacatur for reconsideration of the EPA's emission budgets for
certain states. The court declared invalid the CSAPR Phase 2
NOX ozone season emission budgets of 11 states, including
Florida, holding that those budgets over-control with respect to the
downwind air quality problems to which those states were linked for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Because the 2008 ozone NAAQS is more stringent
than the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the CSAPR Update modeling necessarily
indicates that Florida is also not linked to any remaining air
quality concerns with respect to the 1997 ozone standard for which
the states were regulated in the original CSAPR. For Florida, EPA
therefore relieved sources in the State from the obligation to
comply with the NOX ozone season trading program in
response to the remand. The court also remanded without vacatur the
CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 annual emission budgets for four states
(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas) for reconsideration.
    \14\ See 81 FR 74523-74524, October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the Florida submittal?

    As mentioned in section I of this document, Florida's October 3,
2017 submittal certifies that emission activities from the State will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the
following reasons: (1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the
CSAPR Update indicates that Florida's impact on any downwind receptor
is less than one percent of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC
precursor emissions and monitored ozone concentrations in Florida have
decreased since 2000; and (3) Florida has SIP-approved stationary
source emissions standards and monitoring and permitting regulations in
place addressing certain emissions generating activities that
contribute to ozone precursor emissions. Based on an assessment of this
information, EPA proposes to approve Florida's SIP submission because
it has adequate provisions to ensure that emissions from sources within
the State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state.
    Florida's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling that
showed Florida's contribution to downwind receptors for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is less than one percent of the standard (i.e., 0.75 ppb),
except as follows. As discussed in Florida's October 3, 2017 SIP
submission, the CSAPR Update 2017 modeling generated an average
contribution from Florida at the 0.75 ppb threshold to two receptors in
Houston, Texas (i.e., Harris County sites 482010024 and 482011034).
However, as discussed in section I.B of this document and the CSAPR
Update, a newer version of the CAMx chemical mechanism
contains updated chemical reactions (halogen chemistry) which may have
an impact on the estimated ozone contributions from Florida emissions
to Houston receptors. In the final rule modeling, EPA was not able to
explicitly account for the updated chemistry because this chemistry had
not yet been included by the model developer in the source
apportionment tool in CAMx at the time the modeling was
performed for this final rule. However, because Florida's maximum
contribution to receptors in Houston, Texas is exactly at the 0.75 ppb
threshold, the Agency believes that if it had performed the final rule
modeling with the updated halogen chemistry, Florida's contribution
would likely be below the 0.75 ppb threshold. Therefore, EPA concluded
that Florida's emissions will not contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors when considering updated halogen chemistry
and therefore, did not finalize a FIP that required NOX
emission reductions from Florida in the CSAPR Update. Accordingly, in
the CSAPR Update, EPA already made a final determination that Florida
emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states and that sources in
the State are not required to further reduce emissions pursuant to the
good neighbor provision with respect to this standard.
    Florida's submittal also notes that total NOX and non-
biogenic VOC emissions in Florida have decreased by 52 percent and 44
percent, respectively, since 2000. Florida indicates that monitored
ozone concentrations in the State are also trending downward, which
correlates to the decline in ozone precursor emissions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Florida's October 3, 2017, SIP submission, Appendix 1
for additional information on ozone precursor emission trends and
monitored ozone concentrations in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida also identified SIP-approved regulations in the Florida
Administrative Code, including Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212,
that provide for the implementation of a permitting program required
under title I, parts C and D of the CAA for sources of NOX
and VOC ozone precursors that contribute to ambient ozone
concentrations. The permitting requirements help ensure that no new or
modified sources in the State subject to these permitting regulations
will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Chapters
62-296 and 62-297 establish emission standards and compliance (testing
and monitoring) requirements respectively for stationary sources of air
pollution emissions.
    Based on the information presented herein, EPA proposes to approve
Florida's SIP submission on grounds that it addresses the State's
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS because the EPA has found that the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's October 3, 2017 SIP
submission demonstrating that Florida's SIP is sufficient to address
the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA has already
taken a final action to determine that emissions from Florida will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind states. EPA
requests comment on this proposed approval of Florida's SIP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made
in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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).

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-02542 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72691]
[DOCID:fr21de07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ07-05-001]

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 19, 2007, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Inc. tendered for filing an errata notice to their July
13, 2007 filing requesting a declaratory order that its updated ``safe
harbor'' OATT constituted an acceptable reciprocity tariff pursuant to
the provisions of Order No. 890.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 31, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24752 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 3401]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14971-001]

Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XVIII, LLC; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XVIII, LLC, permittee
for the proposed Union City Dam Hydropower Project, has requested that
its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on January
13, 2020 and would have expired on December 31, 2023.\1\ The project
would have been located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
Union City Dam on French Creek in Erie County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 170 FERC ] 62,017 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14971 will remain in effect
until the close of business, February 13, 2023. But, if the Commission
is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the
close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the
permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2022).

    Dated: January 12, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00956 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 22405]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4451-024]

Green Mountain Power Corporation, City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment

    On April 30, 2020, Green Mountain Power Corporation and the City of
Somersworth, New Hampshire filed an application for a subsequent
license to continue operating the existing 1.28-megawatt Lower Great
Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 4451 (Lower Great Falls Project or
project). The project is located on the Salmon Falls River in Strafford
County, New Hampshire and York County, Maine. The project does not
occupy federal land.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on February 10,
2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on
the application to license the Lower Great Falls Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA.................  August 2021. \1\
Comments on EA.......................  September 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Amanda Gill
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that EAs be completed within 1
year of the federal action agency's decision to prepare an EA. This
notice establishes the Commission's intent to prepare an EA for the
Lower Great Falls Project. Therefore, in accordance with CEQ's
regulations, the EA must be issued within 1 year of the issuance
date of this notice.

    Dated: April 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08830 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34020-34021]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15045]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 607, SEC File No. 270-561, OMB Control No. 3235-0634,
Request for a New OMB Control No.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601-230.610a) exempts from registration
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities
Act'') securities issued by a small business investment company
(``SBIC'') which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') or a closed-end
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business
development company (``BDC'') under the Investment Company Act, so long
as the aggregate offering price of all securities of the issuer that
may be sold within a 12-month period does not exceed $5,000,000 and
certain other conditions are met. Rule 607 under Regulation E (17 CFR
230.607) entitled, ``Sales material to be filed,'' requires sales
material used in connection with securities offerings under Regulation
E to be filed with the Commission at least five days (excluding
weekends and holidays) prior to its use.\1\ Commission

staff reviews sales material filed under rule 607 for materially
misleading statements and omissions. The requirements of rule 607 are
designed to protect investors from the use of false or misleading sales
material in connection with Regulation E offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sales material includes advertisements, articles or other
communications to be published in newspapers, magazines, or other
periodicals; radio and television scripts; and letters, circulars or
other written communications proposed to be sent given or otherwise
communicated to more than ten persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and
BDCs making an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation E. Two
filings were submitted to the Commission under rule 607 in 2016, 2017,
and 2018. Accordingly, we estimate one annual response. Each
respondent's reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the burden
associated with filing its sales material electronically, which is
negligible. For administrative purposes, we estimate an annual burden
of one hour.
    The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory.
Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: July 11, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15045 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75936-75938]
[DOCID:fr15de08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1076; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-102]

Amendment to Class E Airspace; Rutland, VT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E Airspace at Rutland-Southern
Vermont Regional (RUT); Rutland, VT to provide adequate controlled
airspace for those aircraft using Instrument Approach Procedures to the
airport. The IRA NDB has been decommissioned and new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed. This rule
also imparts a technical amendment to change the name of the airport
from Rutland State Airport to Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional. This
action will enhance the safety and airspace management around Rutland-
Southern Vermont Regional.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 12, 2009. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for
inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before January 29,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2008-1076; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-102, at the
beginning of your

comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this
case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the
operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public
comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also
be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_
airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES above
or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the
closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2008-1076; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-102.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 revises Class E Airspace at Rutland, VT by modifying the
Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional (RUT) Class E airspace to provide
adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Rutland, VT. The IRA
NDB has been decommissioned and in reviewing the legal description at
Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional, the FAA determined that the Class E5
airspace should be redefined in order to provide adequate controlled
airspace for aircraft executing Instrument Approach Procedures to
Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional. This action changes the name of the
airport from Rutland State Airport to Rutland-Southern Vermont
Regional. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA
Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008 and effective October 31, 2008,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this Final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies controlled airspace at Rutland, VT.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed October 3, 2008, effective October 31, 2008, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE VT E5 Rutland, VT [REVISED]

Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional, VT
    (Lat. 43[deg]31'48'' N., long 72[deg]56'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional (RUT)
and within 1.5 miles each side of the 001[deg] bearing from Rutland-
Southern Vermont Regional extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.0
miles northeast of the airport and within 1.5 miles each side of the
182[deg] bearing from Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional extending
from the 6.6 mile radius to 9.3 miles southwest of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia on November 20, 2008.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
 [FR Doc. E8-29268 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78163-78166]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-3585]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Character-Space-Limited Online Prescription Drug
Communications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on research entitled, ``Character-Space-
Limited Online Prescription Drug Communications.'' The objective of
this research is to test whether a link to prescription drug risk
information can effectively convey the risks associated with a drug
when benefit claims about that drug are made within character-space-
limited communications used in prescription drug promotion.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, 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-2016-N-3585 for ``Character-Space-Limited Online Prescription Drug
Communications.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. 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: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    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 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.

Character Space-Limited Online Prescription Drug Communications, OMB
Control Number 0910--NEW

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
    Prescription drug regulations require a fair balance of the content
and prominence of risk and benefit information in prescription drug
product claim promotion. The rise of Internet communications that have
character space limitations, such as sponsored link promotion and
microblog messaging, has led to questions about how to use these
communications for prescription drug promotion while complying with the
fair balance requirements. In 2014, FDA released a draft guidance
entitled, ``Guidance for Industry Internet/Social Media Platforms with
Character Space Limitations--Presenting Risk and Benefit Information
for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices,'' (Ref. 1) which states:

    Regardless of character space constraints that may be present on
certain Internet/social media platforms, if a firm chooses to make a
product benefit claim, the firm should also incorporate risk
information within the same character-space-limited communication.
The firm should also provide a mechanism to allow direct access to a
more complete discussion of the risks associated with its product.

    The concept of linking to risk information by providing substantive
product risk information on a landing page (``link to the risk
information''), rather than presenting risk information together with
product benefit information within the character-space-limited
communication, has been the subject of legislation and has been
discussed as an option by some in industry and media (for example,
Refs. 2-5).
    The studies are designed to address the question of whether
substantive risk information in the character-space-limited
communications is effective in communicating risks when benefit claims
are made, or whether a link to the risk information is sufficient.
Within each study, we will manipulate whether or not substantive risk
information appears in the character-space-limited communication.
    Another factor to consider is that when consumers turn to the
Internet for information, they are driven by different goals. These
goals can affect what information they pay attention to and what kind
of information they find (Refs. 6-8). Therefore, we will also
manipulate whether participants are instructed to browse the
information or to search for specific information.
    Two pretests will be conducted to test the goal instructions,
stimuli, questionnaire, and procedure. In Studies 1-4, participants
will be randomly assigned to one experimental condition and will view
the corresponding study materials (Tables 1-4). Across all studies, we
will examine two different character-space-limited formats and two
medical conditions. For Pretest 1 and Study 1, the study materials will
be a character-space-limited communication about a fictional weight
loss drug, embedded in a Google search page about weight loss. The
Study 2 materials will be a character-space-limited communication about
a fictional drug to treat migraine, embedded in a Google search page
about migraine. The Study 3 materials will be a character-space-limited
communication about a fictional weight loss drug, embedded in a Twitter
search page about weight loss. The Pretest 2 and Study 4 materials will
be a character-space-limited communication about a fictional drug to
treat migraine, embedded in a Twitter search page about migraine.
    All study materials will allow for scrolling and clicking on any
links. The study materials will be accessible by participants only.
After viewing the study materials, participants will complete a
questionnaire that assesses participants' retention of the risk
information and their perceptions of the drug's risks and benefits. We
will also measure covariates such as demographics and literacy. The
questionnaires are available upon request.
    We hypothesize that participants who see substantive risk
information in the character-space-limited communication, compared with
link-only participants, will have greater retention of the risk
included in the communication and higher perceived risk. We will
explore whether including substantive risk information in the
character-space-limited communication affects the likelihood that
participants notice the communication or click the link to the risk
information. We hypothesize that participants with a search goal,
compared with a browse goal, will have greater retention of the benefit
and risk information and higher perceived risk because they will be
more likely to notice the character-space-limited communication and to
click the link to the risk information. We will test these hypotheses
in Studies 1-4 to determine whether these effects hold across different
medical conditions and different character-space-limited platforms. To
test these hypotheses, we will conduct inferential statistical tests
such as logistic regression and analysis of variance.
    All participants will be 18 years of age or older. We will exclude
individuals who work in healthcare or marketing. Half of the studies
will have a sample of participants who self-report needing to lose 30
pounds or more; the other half will have a sample of participants who
self-report suffering from migraines. We selected these samples to
increase the likelihood that participants will be interested in the
fictitious study drugs and therefore motivated to pay attention during
the study. The studies will be conducted with an Internet panel. With
the sample sizes described below, we will have sufficient power to
detect small-sized effects in Studies 1-4 (Table 5).

          Table 1--Study 1: Google Sponsored Link, Weight Loss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Goal
                                         -------------------------------
                                              Browse          Search
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Location:
    In character-space-limited            ..............  ..............
     communication......................
    On landing page only................  ..............  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Table 2--Study 2: Google Sponsored Link, Migraine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Goal
                                         -------------------------------
                                              Browse          Search
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Location:
    In character-space-limited            ..............  ..............
     communication......................
    On landing page only................  ..............  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 3--Study 3: Twitter, Weight Loss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Goal
                                         -------------------------------
                                              Browse          Search
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Location:
    In character-space-limited            ..............  ..............
     communication......................
    On landing page only................  ..............  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 4--Study 4: Twitter, Migraine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Goal
                                         -------------------------------
                                              Browse          Search
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Location:
    In character-space-limited            ..............  ..............
     communication......................
    On landing page only................  ..............  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 5--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
           Activity                Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden     Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses      per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretest 1 screener............             464               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              39
Pretest 2 screener............             464               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              39
Study 1 screener..............             786               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              66
Study 2 screener..............             786               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              66
Study 3 screener..............             786               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              66
Study 4 screener..............             786               1               1  .08 (5 min.)....              66
Pretest 1.....................             277               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...              93
Pretest 2.....................             277               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...              93
Study 1.......................             469               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...             157
Study 2.......................             469               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...             157
Study 3.......................             469               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...             157
Study 4.......................             469               1               1  .33 (20 min.)...             157
                               ------------------------------------------------                  ---------------
    Total.....................           6,502  ..............  ..............  ................           1,156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

II. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. Guidance for Industry: Internet/Social Media Platforms with
Character Space Limitations--Presenting Risk and Benefit Information
for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices, available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm401087.pdf.
2. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2479/text.
3. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm184250.htm.
4. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/at-the-fda-drugs-and-tweets-dont-mix-118693.
5. http://www.dtcperspectives.com/is-one-click-in-the-cards/.
6. Detlor, B., S. Sproule, and C. Gupta, ``Pre-Purchase Online
Information Seeking: Search Versus Browse.'' Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, vol. 4, pp. 72-84, 2003.
7. Pieters, R. and M. Wedel, ``Goal Control of Attention to
Advertising: The Yarbus Implication.'' Journal of Consumer Research,
vol. 34, pp. 224-233, 2007.
8. Schlosser, A. E., ``Experiencing Products in the Virtual World:
The Role of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes Versus
Purchase Intentions.'' Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 30, pp.
184-198, 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376807.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26793 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 22613-22615]
[DOCID:fr13my09-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59876; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1, Related to Margin Requirements

May 6, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 2, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by the Exchange. On May 3, 2009, CBOE filed
Amendment No. 1. The Commission is publishing this notice, as amended,
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 modify its margin requirements to
facilitate, under certain circumstances, the ability of account holders
to use vested and currently exercisable compensatory employee stock
options (``Vested Employee Options'') issued by publicly traded
companies as collateral for writing call options that have the same
underlying security as the Vested Employee Options. Specifically, the
proposal would allow account holders to sell, as a hedge, listed equity
call options on the same underlying security as the account holder's
Vested Employee Options without the requirement of margin. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and
at the Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its margin requirements to
facilitate, under certain circumstances, the ability of account holders
to use Vested Employee Options issued by publicly traded companies
(``Issuers'') as collateral for writing call options that have the same
underlying security as the Vested Employee Options. Specifically, the
proposal would allow account holders to sell, as a hedge, listed equity
call options on the same underlying security as the account holder's
Vested Employee Options without the requirement of margin (the
``Transactions'').\3\ The proposal would permit account holders to
engage in the Transactions using their Vested Employee Options as
collateral. Currently, such Transactions would be deemed ``naked'' for
purposes of margin rules and subject to a deposit of cash margin,
effectively making the strategies cost prohibitive and impractical. The
Exchange believes that enabling employees who hold Vested Employee
Options to generate income and liquidity on their otherwise illiquid
asset through the listed options markets will benefit investors by
providing greater transparency and liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Absent relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission,
broker-dealers would need to take a capital charge for the amount of
unsecured margin debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 220.12(f)(1) of Regulation T,\4\ the Exchange, as a
registered national securities exchange, is permitted to recognize the
type of transactions described below as eligible

for margin treatment subject to the approval of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 220.12(f)(1) of Regulation T (12 CFR 220),
Supplement: Margin Requirements, grants authority to registered
national securities exchanges to promulgate rules relating to call
and put margin requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There appears to be precedent to create liquidity for holders of
Vested Employee Options, as indicated by initiatives by Google Inc.
(``Google'') and Credit Suisse First Boston (``CSFB''). Specifically,
in the second quarter of 2007, Google implemented a program that
enables certain employees to sell their Vested Employee Options to
financial institutions that bid their Vested Employee Options through a
competitive auction.\5\ Additionally, in March 2004, the SEC's Division
of Corporation Finance provided CSFB a no-action letter (the ``CSFB No-
Action Letter'') \6\ with respect to CSFB's plan to enable persons
subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), e.g., directors, officers and 10-percent shareholders
(``Section 16 insiders''), with substantially in-the-money vested
employee stock options to use over-the-counter derivatives to limit
their exposure to fluctuations in the trading price of the underlying
common stock. Under CSFB's program, Section 16 insiders sell CSFB a
call option and buy from CSFB a put option on common stock underlying
their stock options. The exercise prices of the call and put options
(together, a ``collar'') are determined so as to provide the Section 16
insiders a measure of protection against a fall in the market value of
the common stock during the collar's term in return for diminishing the
ability of the Section 16 insiders to profit from a strong performance
for the common stock during such period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/ir_
20061212.html.
    \6\ Credit Suisse First Boston, SEC No-Action Letter, 2004 WSB
0712200401 (March 18, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike Google's program, which will generally truncate the
remaining term of Google Vested Employee Options to two years upon
their sale (resulting in holders forfeiting any time value of their
Vested Employee Options beyond the two-year period), CBOE's proposal
would allow holders of Vested Employee Options to monetize the entire
remaining time value of their Vested Employee Options because the term
of the Vested Employee Options would be unaffected by the listed call
option.
    Unlike CSFB's program, CBOE's proposal would make it possible for
not only Section 16 insiders (who would generally be able to meet
existing listed option margin deposit requirements) but also ``paper
rich/cash poor'' holders to monetize the value of their Vested Employee
Options. Also, unlike CSFB's program, the proposal would permit account
holders to sell call options against their Vested Employee Options in
the listed options markets, which generally provide more liquidity and
transparency than the over-the-counter markets.
Description of the Transactions
    The proposal would permit account holders to sell listed call
options on the same security that underlies their Vested Employee
Options without the requirement of margin. Given the uncertificated
nature of employee stock options, in order to secure the account
holder's obligations under the Transactions, the proposal would
require:
    1. The account holder to (A) pledge the Vested Employee Options to
the broker-dealer and (B) provide the broker-dealer with an irrevocable
power-of-attorney authorizing the broker-dealer to exercise the Vested
Employee Options on the account holder's behalf if the listed call
options are assigned or if the broker-dealer determines it is
necessary. The irrevocable power-of-attorney may also be used in the
event the account holder wishes to close the listed option position
prior to its expiration and instructs the broker-dealer to exercise
that number of Vested Employee Options necessary to cover the cost of
the closing purchase (the account holder will also have the option of
depositing additional cash in the account holder's account to cover the
cost of the closing purchase).
    2. In the event the Vested Employee Options are exercised between
the date of the Transaction in the listed call options (the
``Commencement Date'') and the date the Transaction is closed (the
``Closing Date''), the shares issued upon exercise will be pledged to
the broker-dealer (thereby replacing the Vested Employee Options that
had been pledged prior to exercise). For example, during the time a
Transaction is pending, the account holder may resign from the account
holder's employment with the Issuer and may be required to exercise the
Vested Employee Options within a certain timeframe following the
account holder's departure. In such a scenario, the account holder
would ask the broker dealer to exercise the Vested Employee Options and
the stock issued pursuant to the exercise would be pledged to the
broker-dealer.
    3. The Issuer will promptly deliver the stock upon payment or
receipt of the exercise notice from the broker-dealer.\7\ The Issuer
will also agree prior to the Commencement Date to waive any forfeiture
conditions that otherwise might apply to the Vested Employee Options
(e.g., upon a termination of the account holder's employment with the
Issuer) as well as any transfer restrictions that would preclude pledge
of the Vested Employee Options to the broker-dealer. In addition, the
Issuer will represent that the Vested Employee Options are covered by
an effective registration statement on Form S-8. If the registration
statement becomes ineffective the Issuer will notify the broker-dealer
immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will proscribe a set delivery period, which is
expected to be no later than three business days following
assignment of the listed options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Because it is essential that the account holder, broker-dealer
and Issuer cooperate and are each fully informed, agree to and
acknowledge their own and each other's responsibilities, all
Transactions will be governed by an agreement (the ``Agreement'')
entered into by the account holder, broker-dealer and Issuer prior to
the Commencement Date of the first transaction. The Agreement would
generally set forth each party's obligations, representations and
acknowledgements and the terms and conditions governing the
Transactions and must be in a form acceptable to the Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In this regard, the Exchange currently intends to recognize
the Master Vested Stock Option Monetization Agreement, created by
iOptions Group, LLC, as one acceptable agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Such other terms and conditions prescribed by the Exchange in
accordance with such form, formats and procedures as may be established
by the Exchange from time to time would also apply. In this regard,
upon approval of the proposed rule change and for a period of one year,
the Exchange will require that, prior to the Commencement Date, a legal
opinion with respect to the account holder's and Issuer's legal right
to enter into the Transactions under the terms of the Issuer's employee
stock option plan and related documents (the ``Legal Opinion'') be
obtained in a form acceptable to the Exchange. During the one-year time
period, the Exchange may determine that such Legal Opinion is no longer
necessary and will revise its established forms, formats and procedures
accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in
Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in that the proposed rule change is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market

and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. By recognizing that margin should not be required
for customers for the transactions contemplated by this proposed rule
change, both investors and the listed equity options markets will
benefit as a result of greater transparency and liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Specifically the Commission requests
comment on the following topics:
     Are there other alternative steps that could be taken that
would enhance a broker-dealer's legal authority to exercise the Vested
Employee Options and receive the underlying stock? Please describe any
such alternatives and why those alternatives may be more consistent
with the Act.
     If no margin is required for a Transaction, what steps, if
any, should be taken regarding liquidity or operational risks arising
from the Transactions? Should the margin rule include a minimum margin
requirement?
    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-2008-55 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-CBOE-2008-55. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-2008-55 and should be
submitted on or before June 3, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11121 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P