Docket Index Table of Contents
A.	U.S. EPA Rulemaking, Guidance Documents, Informational Memos, Technical Support Documents, Memos to File, and Data Analysis Documents	1
B.	State Plans and Correspondence	5
C.	Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking	6
D.	Notice of Proposed Rulemaking	7
E.	Public Comments and Related Documents	7
F.	Additional Documents for Final Rulemaking	7
G.	Notice of Final Rulemaking	7

    U.S. EPA Rulemaking, Guidance Documents, Informational Memos, Technical Support Documents, Memos to File, and Data Analysis Documents
Rulemaking

    Part 81  -  Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques; Final rule. 43 Federal Register (FR) 8962 (March 3, 1978).
    Part 50  -  National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Photochemical Oxidants; Final rule. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
    State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas; Proposed rule. 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979).
    Designation of Areas for Air Quality Purposes; Final rule. 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, ("General Preamble"); Final rule. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    Ambient Air Quality Surveillance; Final rule. 58 FR 8452 (February 12, 1993).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California -- Ozone; Final rule. 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997).
    Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Indiana; Direct final rule. 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997).
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final rule. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).
    Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Illinois; Final rule. 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997).
    Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California -- Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). 63 FR 19659 (April 21, 1998).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona and California; General Conformity Rules; Direct final rule. 64 FR 19916 (April 23, 1999).
    Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California; Final rule. 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
    Final Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution District; Final rule. 65 FR 76567 (December 7, 2000).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; Post 1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans, One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Attainment Date Extension for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area; Final rule. 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration and Attainment Date Extension for the Greater Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Area; Final rule. 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan; Direct final rule. 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001).
    Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Progress, Attainment, and Maintenance State Implementation Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide; California; Final rule. 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002).
    Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred Effective Dates. 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004).
    Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Direct final rule. 69 FR 29451 (May 24, 2004).
    Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard -- Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline; Final rule. 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
    Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations; Final rule. 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006).
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final rule. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted Early Progress Plan Ventura County 8-Hour Ozone for Transportation Conformity Purposes; California; Notice of adequacy. 73 FR 24595 (May 5, 2008).
    Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; Ventura Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification to Serious; Final rule. 73 FR 29073 (May 20, 2008).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California;  Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard for the Ventura County Area; Direct final rule. 74 FR 25153 (May 27, 2009).
    Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations; Final rule. 75 FR 17254 (April 5, 2010).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Reformulated Gasoline and Diesel Fuels; California; Final rule. 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010).
    Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Final rule. 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010).
    Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District and Placer County Air Pollution Control District; Direct final rule. 76 FR 5277 (January 31, 2011).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California Air Resources Board -- In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus Regulation, and Drayage Truck Regulation; Final rule. 77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012).
    Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver; Final rule. 77 FR 28772 (May 16, 2012).
    Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Final rule. 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; Determinations of  Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Direct final rule. 77 FR 56775 (September 14, 2012).
    Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Proposed rule. 78 FR 34178 (June 6, 2013).
    Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Final rule. 80 FR 2016 (January 15, 2015).
    Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final rule. 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final rule. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
    Official Release of EMFAC2014 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model for Use in the State of California; Notice of availability. 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Final rule. 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016).
    Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter; Final rule. 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Direct final rule. 82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Enhanced Monitoring; California; Final rule. 82 FR 45191 (September 28, 2017).
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Final rule. 83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018).
    Clean Air Plans; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; San Joaquin Valley, California; Final rule. 84 FR 11198 (March 25, 2019).
    Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed rule. 84 FR 20604 (May 10, 2019).
    Official Release of EMFAC2017 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model for Use in the State of California; Notice of availability. 84 FR 41717 (August 15, 2019).
    Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed rule. 84 FR 43738 (August 22, 2019).
    Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Air Basin; 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; Final rule. 84 FR 52005 (October 1, 2019).
    Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Final rule. 84 FR 66074 (December 3, 2019).
Guidance Documents and Informational Memos

    Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas," November 30, 1999.
    Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors, "Additional Submission on RACM From States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs," December 14, 2000.
    "Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations," EPA-454-R-05-001, August 2005.
    "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze," EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007.
    "Fact Sheet  -  2008 Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone," EPA, March 2008.
    Memorandum from Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, OAQPS, EPA, "Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze," December 3, 2014.
    "Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations," EPA-454/B-17-002, May 2017.
Technical Support Documents, Memos to File, and Data Analysis Documents

    Letter dated November 26, 2018 from Gwen Yoshimura, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9 to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality and Science Division, CARB.
    Air Quality System (AQS) Design Value Report (AMP480) for Ventura County for 2008 ozone NAAQS for 2008-2018, EPA, July 3, 2019.
    2008 8hr Ozone NAAQS Design Values in Ventura County, 2008-2018, figure dated July 3, 2019.
    Ventura County Emissions, July 16, 2019.
    Memorandum dated September 5, 2019 from John Kelly, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9 to Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146, "Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in 2016 Ventura County Ozone Plan."
    California Air Resources Board (CARB), Aerometric Data Analysis System Air Quality Database, Ventura County Ozone Trends Summary Report, September 11, 2019
    Memorandum dated September 11, 2019 from John Kelly, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9 to Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146, "District Rules Assumed for Purposes of Developing Baseline Emissions Projections."
    State Plans and Correspondence
State Plans

    Letter dated July 17, 2014 from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer for Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, including:
 CARB Staff Report, "8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Emission Inventory Submittal," release date May 23, 2014, submitted July 17, 2014.
 CARB public notice, "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Emission Inventory Submittal," June 26, 2014.
 CARB meeting transcript, June 26, 2014.
 CARB Board resolution, "The 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Emission Inventory Submittal," Resolution 14-14, June 26, 2014.
    Letter dated April 11, 2017 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, including:
 Letter dated March 2, 2017 from Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, with enclosures, including:
 Completeness Checklist for SIP Revision, California SIP, VCAPCD, "2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan" (2016 AQMP).
 Final 2016 AQMP, adopted by VCAPCD Board February 14, 2017, with appendices.
 VCAPCD Board Minute Order, February 14, 2017.
 Letter dated February 14, 2017 from Michael Villegas, APCO, VCAPCD to VCAPCD Board.
 Certificate of publication, Ventura County Star Newspaper, dated January 11, 2017.
 Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the 2016 Ozone SIP for Ventura County," February 17, 2017.
 "Staff Report, CARB Review of the Ventura County 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard," CARB, February 17, 2017.
 CARB Resolution 17-5, March 23, 2017, Agenda Item Number 17-3-1, "2016 Ozone SIP for Ventura County."
 CARB meeting comments log, March 30, 2017.
 CARB meeting transcript, March 23, 2017.
    South Coast Air Quality Management District "2016 Air Quality Management Plan," Appendix V, "Modeling and Attainment Demonstration," includes Attachment 1 "WRF Model Performance Time Series," March 2017.
    Letter dated December 5, 2018 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, including:
 "2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan," adopted October 25, 2018, CARB.
 Completeness Checklist for SIP Revision, California SIP, "2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan" (2018 SIP Update).
 CARB Resolution 18-50, October 25, 2018, Agenda Item Number 18-8-11, "2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan."
 CARB public notice, "2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan," October 25, 2018.
 CARB meeting transcript, October 25, 2018.
 CARB meeting comments log, December 10, 2018.
 CARB compilation of written comments.
 Public comment letter dated October 22, 2013 from Sterling Griffin, Quality Carbon Registry to CARB.
Correspondence
    Letter dated July 27, 2018 from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, CARB to Dr. Meredith Kurpius, Chief, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, with enclosure:
 Annual Network Plan Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts, June 2018.
    Letter dated August 29, 2019 from Dr. Michael Benjamin, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB to Amy Zimpfer, Assistant Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 9, "technical correction," with enclosures:
 Attachment A, "Ventura County 75 ppb 8-hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration including Transportation Conformity Rounding Margins"; Appendix B, "Ventura County 75 ppb 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Sensitivity Analysis with Transportation Conformity Rounding Margin."
    Letter dated August 30, 2019 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, "commitment letters," with enclosure:
 Letter dated August 16, 2019 from Michael Villegas, APCO, VCAPCD to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB.
    Letter dated November 15, 2019 from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, "withdrawal letter."
    CARB, Executive Order S-19-15, Withdrawing Ventura County RFP and Baseyear Inventory SIP Withdrawal for the 2008 Ozone Standard, November 15, 2019.
    Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking
    South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), "South Coast I."
    LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
    Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) "South Coast II."
    Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 24, Source Recordkeeping, Reporting and Emission Statements, revised and renamed September 15, 1992.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Ventura County; 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; Proposed rule, 84 FR 70109 (December 20, 2019).

    Public Comments and Related Documents
    Public comment on proposal. "Your information given on regulations.gov on this proposal is extensive but to complicated for me to conclude if the proposal is good or not." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0108
    Public comment on proposal. "Comments submitted by Air Law for All, Ltd. on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, and Citizens For Responsible Oil and Gas." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0109
    Public comment on proposal. "The 2016 Ventura County AQMP would provide beneficial emission control measures to Ventura County. The contingency plan, motor vehicle emissions budget, and control measures would...." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0110
    Public comment on proposal. "The proposed revision to the portions of the 2016 Ventura County Ozone SIP following the evident improvement in the Ventura County emissions and the meeting of the requirements for..." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0111
    Public comment on proposal. "I support the proposed actions. The issue of air quality is one that can not be ignored, especially now that the scientific consensus is clear and time is not on our side. I only..." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0112
    Public comment on proposal. "I support the air quality state implementation plan to regulate and reduce the number of engines and to make existing ones more efficient in Ventura County, California. This will..." ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0146-0113

    Additional Documents for Final Rulemaking
    [RESERVED]

    Notice of Final Rulemaking
    Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Ventura County; 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Requirements; Final rule, 85 FR _____ (February __, 2020).

    Additional Documents for Final Rulemaking
    [RESERVED]


[Federal Register: July 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 36190]
[DOCID:fr22jy09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS09-7-000]

Muscatine Power & Water; Notice of Filing

July 15, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 25, 2009, The Board of Water, Electric and
Communications Trustees for the City of Muscatine, Iowa, d/b/a
Muscatine Power & Water filed a request for exemption of Part 358 of
the Commission's Regulations for Standards of Conduct requirements,
pursuant to Order No. 889, as revised by Order No. 2004, Order No. 690,
and Order No. 717.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 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 July 27, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17338 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47142]
[DOCID:fr13au08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12783-002]

Inglis Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

August 7, 2008.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 12783-002.
    c. Dated Filed: June 13, 2008.
    d. Submitted By: Inglis Hydropower, LLC (Inglis Hydropower).
    e. Name of Project: Inglis Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the existing Inglis Bypass Channel and Spillway on
the Withlacoochee River, in the town of Inglis, Levy County, Florida.
No federal lands would be occupied by the proposed project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Dean Edwards, Manager, Inglis
Hydropower, LLC, PO Box 1565, Dover, FL 33527;<PHONE_NUMBER>, (813)
966-4300<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Adams at<PHONE_NUMBER>7; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Inglis Hydropower filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on June 13, 2008. Inglis Hydropower filed public
notice of its request on June 23, 2008. In a letter dated August 6,
2008, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Inglis
Hydropower's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the
joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; (b) NMFS under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section
106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. Inglis Hydropower filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18730 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41316-41317]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17518]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64836; File No. SR-BYX-2011-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Temporarily Extend the Availability of a Data Feed

July 7, 2011
    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 July 5, 2011, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BYX Rule 11.22 to extend the
availability of its TCP FAST PITCH data feed for one additional month
to allow recipients of the feed additional time to transition to other
Exchange data feeds.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the
availability of its TCP FAST PITCH data feed for one additional month
to allow recipients of the feed additional time to transition to other
Exchange data feeds. The Exchange originally planned to decommission
the TCP FAST PITCH data feed effective July 1, 2011, but is proposing
to extend this date for one month at the request of certain data
recipients that have not completed their transition to one of the
alternative data feeds provided by the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ In particular, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that an additional month to
allow certain data recipients to transition to other data feeds offered
by the Exchange will help to avoid a disruption of such data
recipients' business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on

which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
BYX has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \7\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. BYX requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay in order to allow BYX to
permit the Exchange to continue to offer, until August 1, 2011, the TCP
FAST PITCH data feed while certain data recipients transition to
another data feed. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay \9\ is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2011-014 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-BYX-2011-014. 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,\10\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BYX-2011-014 and should be submitted on or before August
3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17518 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72568-72572]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96353; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Increase Position and Exercise
Limits for Options on Apple Inc. Stock (``AAPL'')

November 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 7, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to increase position and exercise limits for options on Apple Inc.
stock (``AAPL''). The text of the proposed rule change is provided
below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.
* * * * *

Rule 8.30. Position Limits

* * * * *

Interpretations and Policies

    .01 No change.
    .02 Option Contract Limits.
    (a)-(f) No change.
    (g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (e) above, the
position limit for AAPL options is 1,000,000 option contracts.
However, if the most recent six-month trading volume of AAPL stock
totals less than 200,000,000 shares or the most recent six-month
trading volume of AAPL stock totals less than 150,000,000 shares and
AAPL stock has fewer than 600,000,000 shares currently outstanding,
the position limit for AAPL options will be determined as set forth
in paragraphs (a) through (e) above.
* * * * *

Rule 8.42. Exercise Limits

    (a) General. Except with the prior permission of the President
or his designee, to be confirmed in writing, no Trading Permit
Holder shall exercise, for any account in which it has an interest
or for the account of any customer, a long position in any option
contract where such Trading Permit Holder or customer, acting alone
or in concert with others, directly or indirectly:
    (1) has or will have exercised within any five consecutive
business days aggregate long positions in any class of options dealt
in on the Exchange in excess of 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or
200,000, or 250,000 or 1,000,000 option contracts or such other
number of options contracts as may be fixed from time to time by the
Exchange as the exercise limit for that class of options; or
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is [also] available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative
schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such
as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. While
position limits should address and discourage the potential for
manipulative schemes and adverse market impact, if such limits are set
too low, participation in the options market may be discouraged. The
Exchange believes that position limits must therefore be balanced
between mitigating concerns of any potential manipulation and the cost
of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for
legitimate economic purposes.
    Cboe Options Rule 8.30 sets forth the position limits for equity
options.\3\ Specifically, Rule 8.30 provides that the position limits
for equity options are 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or 200,000 or 250,000
option contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations,
etc.) on the same side of the market or such other number of option
contracts as may be fixed from time to time by the Exchange.
Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 8.30 describes how the Exchange
determines which of the five position limit amounts will apply to an
equity option class. Specifically, the position limit applicable to a
class is determined based on the trading volume and outstanding shares
of the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Rule 8.42, the exercise limit for an equity
option is the same as the position limit established in Rule 8.30
for that equity option.

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

    When an underlying security undergoes a stock split, the number of
outstanding options is proportionately increased and the exercise price
is proportionately decreased.\4\ For example, if a security undergoes a
4-1 stock split, and before the stock split, an investor holds one
option on 100 shares of stock ABC with an exercise price of $100, after
adjustment for the split, the investor will hold four ABC options, each
on 100 shares and each with an exercise price of $25. In response to
this increase in option positions that results from a stock split for
the underlying, if an underlying security undergoes a stock split, the
position (and exercise) limit for the option overlying that security is
multiplied by the number of shares issued per single outstanding share
as part of the stock split. Using the same 4-1 example, if the position
limit for an option before the stock split is 250,000, the position
limit for the option overlying that security will be multiplied by four
to 1,000,000. This will prevent investors holding the maximum positions
from immediately being over the position limit at the time of the stock
split. However, this position limit increase is temporary and lasts
until the last outstanding option position at the time of the stock
split has expired, at which time the position limit reverts to the pre-
stock split level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') Bylaws, Article
VI, Section 11A(a); and Characteristics and Risks of Standardized
Options at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria in Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02,
the position limit for AAPL options is currently 250,000 (and pursuant
to Rule 8.42, the exercise limit is also 250,000). It was also 250,000
at the time of the AAPL 4-1 stock split on August 31, 2020, at which
time the position limit was increased to 1,000,000. The position limit
for AAPL options remained at 1,000,000, until September 16, 2022 (when
the last option position that was outstanding at the time of the stock
split expired), at which time the position limit reverted back to
250,000. However, given the significant activity in AAPL options (and
the underlying security), the Exchange understands that numerous
customers held more than 250,000 AAPL option contracts at that time,
putting their holdings above the position limit. The Exchange further
understands from these customers that the reduced position limit may be
impeding trading activity and ability to implement their investment
strategies in AAPL options, such as use of effective hedging vehicles
or income generating strategies (e.g., buy-write or put-write), and the
ability of market-makers to make liquid markets with tighter spreads in
these options, potentially causing the transfer of volume to over-the-
counter (``OTC'') markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral
agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the
marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price
discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. Therefore,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to increase the AAPL position
limit back to 1,000,000 option contracts \5\ so market participants may
continue to trade AAPL options in the same manner and at the same
levels they have been for the prior two years. The Exchange believes
this may enable liquidity providers to maintain liquidity levels on the
Exchange and other market participants to continue to trade on the
Exchange rather than shift their volume to the OTC markets. The
Exchange believes the larger market capitalization of AAPL stock, as
well as the continued highly liquid market for this security since the
stock split, reduces the concerns for potential market manipulation
and/or disruption in the underlying market upon increasing position
limits, while the continued demand for trading AAPL options for
legitimate economic purposes despite the reduced position limit
warrants reversion to the position limit that existed for the prior two
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, position (and exercise) limits are intended to
prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used to or
potentially create incentives to manipulate the underlying market so as
to benefit options positions. The Commission has recognized that these
limits are designed to minimize the potential for mini-manipulations
and for corners or squeezes of the underlying market, as well as serve
to reduce the possibility for disruption of the options market itself,
especially in illiquid classes.\6\ As demonstrated below, AAPL stock
(and the overlying options) is highly liquid. The Exchange notes that
the proposed position limit of 1,000,000 contracts for AAPL options,
which was the AAPL options position limit for two years, is the same as
existing position limits for options on the iShares Russell 2000 ETF
(``IWM''), the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (``EEM''), iShares
China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (``EFA'').\7\
To support the proposed position limit increase, the Exchange
considered the liquidity of the underlying security, the value of the
underlying security and relevant marketplace, the AAPL share and option
volume, and, the liquidity of the above-referenced exchange-traded
products (``ETPs'') that currently have position limits of 1,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67672 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50750 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29).
    \7\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07,
which provides that the position limits for options on shares or
other securities that represent interests in registered investment
companies organized as open-end management investment companies,
unit investment trusts, or similar entities that satisfy the
criteria set forth in Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06 are
the same as equity options pursuant to Rule 8.30, except for certain
securities listed in Interpretation and Policy .07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The below table shows the average daily volume (``ADV'') of each of
shares of and option contracts on AAPL stock traded during specified
time periods prior to the 2020 stock split, between the stock split and
the position limit reversion, and since the position limit reversion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          ADV (option
           Date range                ADV (shares)         contracts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 3, 2020 through August           170,468,316             870,304
 31, 2020 (date of stock split).
September 1, 2020 through                101,001,141           1,661,627
 December 31, 2021..............
January 1, 2022 through                   88,458,041           1,354,430
 September 16, 2022 (date of
 position limit reversion)......
September 17, 2022 through                91,683,969           1,425,372
 October 24, 2022 (time since
 position limit reversion)......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as of October 24, 2022, there were 16.07 billion
outstanding shares of AAPL stock, which had a per share price of
$149.45 on that date, giving it a market capitalization of $2.4
trillion.
    For comparison, below is the same data for IWM, EEM, FXI, and EFA
from January 1, 2022 through October 24, 2022, with outstanding shares,
share value (net asset value (``NAV''), and market capitalization (fund
value) as of

October 24, 2022. While these are ETPs as opposed to stocks, ETP shares
trade in the same manner as stocks and other than the few set forth in
Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .07, position limits for options
on ETPs are determined in the same manner as options on stocks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Shares        Fund market
             Product                 ADV (ETF       ADV (option     outstanding      cap (USD)      Share value
                                      shares)       contracts)      (millions)      (billions)         (USD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IWM.............................      31,358,610         840,721          291.10           50.49          173.44
EEM.............................      47,767,767         183,342          578.25           19.62           33.93
FXI.............................      39,007,654         159,703          176.70            3.80           21.53
EFA.............................      29,953,566         123,262          705.60           41.83           59.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, overall, the liquidity in the AAPL
shares and in their overlying options, AAPL's significantly large
market capitalization, and the overall market landscape for AAPL stock
and options support the proposal to increase its position limit. Given
the robust liquidity in and value of AAPL stock, the Exchange does not
anticipate that the proposed increase in the position limit would
create significant price movements as the relevant market is large
enough to adequately absorb potential price movements that may be
caused by larger trades.
    The proposed rule change is based on current trading statistics of
AAPL options and stock. If the volume of trading were to significantly
decline, the Exchange appreciates the need to adjust the proposed
1,000,000 position limit to address that decline in trading activity to
reduce the changes [sic] of potential manipulation. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to add to proposed Rule 8.30, Interpretation and
Policy .02(g) that if the most recent six-month trading volume of AAPL
stock totals less than 200,000,000 shares or the most recent six-month
trading volume of AAPL stock totals less than 150,000,000 shares and
AAPL stock has fewer than 600,000,000 shares currently outstanding, the
position limit for AAPL options will be determined as set forth in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of Interpretation and Policy .02.\8\ These
proposed levels are twice the current volume and share levels of an
underlying security for the overlying option to be eligible for the
250,000 option contract position limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02(f),
every six months, the Exchange will review the status of underlying
securities to determine which limit should apply. A higher limit
will be effective on the date set by the Exchange, while any change
to a lower limit will take effect after the last expiration then
trading, unless the requirement for the same or a higher limit is
met at the time of the intervening six-month review. This will
continue to apply to AAPL options, and if the trading levels are
below the criteria in proposed paragraph (g) at the time of this
review, AAPL options will be subject to the standard position limits
applicable to other equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surveillance and Reporting Requirements
    The Exchange believes that increasing the position limit for AAPL
options would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment
for these options, which will benefit customers that trade these
options. The reporting requirement for AAPL options would remain
unchanged. Thus, the Exchange would still require that each TPH or TPH
organization that maintains positions in AAPL options on the same side
of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer,
report certain information to the Exchange. This information would
include, but would not be limited to, the options' positions, whether
such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s).
Market-Makers \9\ (including Designated Primary Market-Makers
(``DPMs'')) \10\ would continue to be exempt from this reporting
requirement, however, the Exchange may access Market-Maker position
information.\11\ Moreover, the Exchange's requirement that TPHs file
reports with the Exchange for any customer who held aggregate large
long or short positions on the same side of the market of 200 or more
option contracts of any single class for the previous day will remain
at this level for AAPL options and will continue to serve as an
important part of the Exchange's surveillance efforts.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Market-Maker is a ``Trading Permit Holder registered with
the Exchange pursuant to Rule 3.52 for the purpose of making markets
in option contracts traded on the Exchange and that has the rights
and responsibilities set forth in Chapter 5, Section D of the
Rules.'' See Rule 1.1.
    \10\ A Designated Primary Market-Maker is a ``TPH organization
that is approved by the Exchange to function in allocated securities
as a Market-Maker (as defined in Rule 8.1) and is subject to the
obligations under Rule 5.54 or as otherwise provided under the rules
of the Exchange.'' See Rule 1.1.
    \11\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') through the
Large option Position Reporting (``LOPR'') system acts as a
centralized service provider for TPH compliance with position
reporting requirements by collecting data from each TPH or TPH
organization, consolidating the information, and ultimately
providing detailed listings of each TPH's report to the Exchange, as
well as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''),
acting as its agent pursuant to a regulatory services agreement
(``RSA'').
    \12\ See Rule 8.43 for reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and
reporting requirements at the Exchange and other SROs are capable of
properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity.
The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in
place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to
identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards.
These procedures utilize daily monitoring of market activity via
automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both
options and the underlyings, as applicable.\13\ The Exchange also notes
that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of
Schedules 13D or 13G,\14\ which are used to report ownership of stock
which exceeds 5% of a company's total stock issue and may assist in
providing information in monitoring for any potential manipulative
schemes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange believes these procedures have been effective
for the surveillance of trading AAPL options and will continue to
employ them.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address
concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in AAPL
options. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to
limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing
the margin and/or capital that a TPH must maintain for a large position
held by itself or by its customer.\15\ In addition, Rule 15c3-1 \16\
imposes a capital charge on TPHs to the extent of any margin deficiency
resulting from the higher margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 10.3 for a description of margin requirements.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the position
limit for AAPL options will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will
provide market participants with the ability to execute their trading
and hedging activities and use AAPL options to achieve investment
strategies in the same manner and at the same levels they have been
since the 2020 stock split. Also, increasing the position limit may
allow Market-Makers to maintain their liquidity in AAPL options in
amounts commensurate with the continued high consumer demand in the
AAPL options market. The proposed position limit increase may also
encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the
Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will
enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange
through increased order flow.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the considerable market
capitalization of AAPL stock and the liquidity of the markets for AAPL
stock and options will mitigate concerns regarding potential
manipulation of the products and/or disruption of the underlying
markets upon increasing the relevant position limits. The Exchange has
not observed manipulation or disruption of the AAPL stock or options
market in the past two years while the position limit was 1,000,000. As
a general principle, increases in market capitalization, active trading
volume, and deep liquidity of securities do not lead to manipulation
and/or disruption. The Exchange does not believe that the AAPL stock or
options markets would become susceptible to manipulation and/or
disruption as a result of permanently increasing the position limit to
that level. Indeed, the Commission has previously expressed the belief
that not just increasing, but removing, position and exercise limits
may bring additional depth and liquidity to the options markets without
increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of
the options or the underlying securities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22,
1999), 64 FR 4911, 4913 (February 1, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change to
increase position limits for select actively traded options is not
novel. The Commission has approved similar proposed rule changes by the
Exchange to increase position limits for options on similar, highly
liquid and actively traded ETPs.\21\ While those are ETPs and AAPL is
stock, pursuant to Rule 8.30, the position limits for options on stock
and ETPs are generally calculated in the same manner and based on
trading volume and market capitalization of the underlying. As
demonstrated above, the AAPL stock and options ADV (both before and
after the stock split) and the AAPL market capitalization are
significantly higher than that of ETPs for the position limit for the
overlying options, which the Commission previously approved to be
increased to 1,000,000. While the ADV of AAPL stock is lower than it
was prior to the 2020 stock split, it is still more than 50% of the
pre-stock split ADV and is currently approximately two to three times
higher than the ADV of IWM, EEM, FXI, and EFA, the options on which are
subject to a 1,000,000 position limit. Additionally, the ADV of AAPL
options since the 2020 stock split is almost double the ADV prior to
the stock split and is currently anywhere from almost twice to more
than ten times the ADV of IWM, EEM, FXI, and EFA options, which are
currently subject to a position limit four times higher than that of
AAPL options. Further, the market capitalization of AAPL stock is
approximately $2.4 trillion (as of October 24, 2022), compared to the
market capitalizations of approximately $50.49 billion, $19.62 billion,
$3.80 billion, and $41.83 billion for IWM, EEM, FXI, and EFA,
respectively (as of that same date). Given the significantly higher
levels of AAPL options and stock trading than that of the above-
referenced ETPs and the overlying options, and the considerably higher
market capitalization of AAPL stock compared to that of the ETPs, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to increase the
position limit of AAPL options to the same position limit of 1,000,000
that currently exists for these ETP options. The proposed rule change
also includes criteria for the AAPL option position limit to be
determined in the same manner as other equity options in the event AAPL
stock trading volume and outstanding shares significantly declines in
the future. This would occur if those numbers were less than twice the
current criteria an underlying security needs to satisfy for the
overlying option to be eligible for the 250,000 position limit. The
Exchange believes this is a reasonable level to cause the position
limit to revert back to the standard position limit levels in order to
reduce the likelihood of potential manipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 93525 (November 4,
2021), 86 FR 62584 (November 10, 2021) (SR-CBOE-2021-029); 88768
(April 29, 2020), 85 FR 26736 (May 5, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-015);
83415 (June 12, 2018), 83 FR 28274 (June 18, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-
042); and 68086 (October 23, 2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012)
(SR-CBOE-2012-066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be
designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might
arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in
certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial
requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately
address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in
AAPL options, further promoting just and equitable principles of
trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the
protection of investors. As noted above, the Exchange has not observed
manipulation or disruption of the AAPL stock or options market in the
past two years while the position limit was 1,000,000, nor does it
believe that the AAPL stock or options markets would become susceptible
to manipulation and/or disruption as a result of permanently increasing
the position limit to that same level.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the increased position limit (and exercise
limit) will be available to all market participants and apply to each
in the same manner. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will provide additional opportunities for market participants to
continue to efficiently achieve their investment and trading objectives
for AAPL options on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange
believes the proposal promotes competition because it may maintain
order flow on exchanges, which would in turn compete amongst each other
for those orders, and prevent a transfer of trading activity to the
nontransparent OTC market.\22\ The Exchange believes market
participants would benefit from being able to trade options with
increased position limits in an exchange environment in several ways,
including but not limited to the following: (1) enhanced efficiency in
initiating and closing out position; (2) increased market transparency;
and (3) heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC
as issuer and guarantor. The Exchange notes that other options
exchanges may choose to file similar proposals with the Commission to
increase the position limit on AAPL options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Additionally, several other options exchanges have the same
position limits as the Exchange, as they incorporate by reference to
the Exchange's position limits, and as a result the position limits
for options on AAPL options will increase at those exchanges. For
example, Nasdaq Options position limits are determined by the
position limits established by the Exchange. See Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC Rules, Options 9, Sec. 13 (Position Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-057.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-057. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-057, and should be submitted
on or before December 16, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25664 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47991]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-481, OMB Control No. 3235-0538]

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 203-3, Form ADV-H

    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 (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form ADV-H under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.'' Rule 203-3 (17 CFR 275.203-3)
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b) requires that
registered advisers requesting either a temporary or continuing
hardship exemption submit the request on Form ADV-H. Rule 204-4 (17 CFR
275.204-4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 requires that
exempt reporting advisers requesting a temporary hardship exemption
submit the request on Form ADV-H. The purpose of this collection of
information is to permit advisers to obtain a hardship exemption to not
complete an electronic filing. The temporary hardship exemption that is
available to registered advisers under rule 203-3 and exempt reporting
advisers under rule 204-4 permits these advisers to make late filings
due to unforeseen computer or software problems. The continuing
hardship exemption available to registered advisers under rule 203-3
permits advisers to submit all required electronic filings on hard copy
for data entry by the operator of the IARD.
    The Commission has estimated that compliance with the requirement
to complete Form ADV-H imposes a total burden of approximately one hour
for an adviser. Based on our experience, we estimate that we will
receive 15 Form ADV-H filings annually from registered investment
advisers and one Form ADV-H filing annually from exempt reporting
advisers. Based on the 60 minute per respondent estimate, the
Commission estimates a total annual burden of 16 hours for this
collection of information.
    Rule 203-3, rule 204-4, and Form ADV-H do not require recordkeeping
or records retention. The collection of information requirements under
the rule and form are mandatory. The information collected pursuant to
the rule and Form ADV-H consists of filings with the Commission. These
filings are not 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 background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 3, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17257 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11346-11347]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Compatibility Program Notice, Lafayette Regional Airport,
Lafayette, Louisiana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by Lafayette
Airport Commission under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'')
and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the
description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report
No. 96-52 (1980). On April 4, 2012, the FAA determined that the noise
exposure maps submitted by Lafayette Airport Commission under Part 150
were in compliance with applicable requirements. On November 23, 2015,
the FAA approved the Lafayette Regional Airport noise compatibility
program. Both of the recommendations of the program were approved.

DATES: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Lafayette
Regional Airport noise compatibility program is November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Tim Tandy,
Environmental Protection Specialist, ASW-640D, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, Texas 76177. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This notice announces that the FAA has
given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for
Lafayette Regional Airport, effective November 23, 2015.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise

compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section 150.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself
constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that
all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for
project grants must be submitted to the FAA Regional Office in Fort
Worth, Texas.
    The Lafayette Airport Commission submitted to the FAA on November
29, 2011 the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation
produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from
August 14, 2013 through August 6, 2014. The Lafayette Regional Airport
noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with
applicable requirements on April 4, 2012. Notice of this determination
was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2012.
    The Lafayette Regional Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from
August 6, 2014 to the year 2017. It was requested that the FAA evaluate
and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described
in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on
May 25, 2015 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or
disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be
an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained two proposed actions for noise
mitigation off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined
that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR
Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was
approved by the FAA effective November 23, 2015.
    Outright approval was granted for both of the specific program
elements. A preventive land use mitigation measure would offer owners
of vacant residential parcels located within the existing DNL 65
contour the opportunity to participate in the Avigation Easement
Acquisition Program. A remedial measure would offer owners of
residential properties located within the DNL 65 contour the
opportunity to participate in the Avigation Easement Acquisition
Program.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the FAA Southwest Region Airports Division Manager
on November 23, 2015. The Record of Approval, as well as other
evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are
available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the
administrative offices of the Lafayette Airport Commission. The Record
of Approval also will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, February 4, 2016.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-04763 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 5)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1271-1272]
[DOCID:fr08ja08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28649; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wheatland, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Wheatland, WY.
Additional Class E airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using
a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Phifer Airfield. This will
improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft executing
the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On September 18, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at
Wheatland, WY, (72 FR 53201). This action would improve the safety of
IFR aircraft executing this new RNAV GPS SIAP approach procedure at
Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Wheatland, WY. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing
a new RNAV (GPS) approach procedure at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (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. 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 establishes
additional controlled airspace at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.

List 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 14 CFR 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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Wheatland, WY [New]

Wheatland, Phifer Airfield, WY
    (Lat. 43[deg]03[min]20[sec] N., long. 104[deg]55[min]43[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of Phifer Airfield, WY and within 4 miles
north and 4 miles south of the Phifer Airfield, WY 080[deg] radial
extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.90 miles east of the Phifer
Airfield, WY.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 14, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-26 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P