Arthropoda Invertebrates in the Plankton: Arthropoda The phylum Arthropoda encompasses a tremendous range of marine species and body plans, as well as an amazing diversity of terrestrial insects and spiders. Coastal and nearshore marine habitats, including the plankton, feature a number of these forms, such as copepods, crabs, and barnacles. While the mobile, highly jointed bodies of crabs and copepods may seem quite different from the sessile, immobile carapaces of barnacles, these groups share important traits: a chitinous exoskeleton and a need to molt that exoskeleton in order to grow larger.

In our observations of the plankton, we found both larval and fully planktonic species to be very abundant: during our night lighting from the Lab dock, we caught many hundreds of two crab larval stages, zoea and megalopae. And in our daytime plankton tow in the Straits area close to Friday Harbor, we caught great numbers of several different types of copepods. Photos of these and our other discoveries follow.

Brachyuran Crabs This crab megalopa ( 4 mm in length) was one of hundreds captured by night lighting during the last week of June. It swam strongly at the water's surface, its legs occasionally splaying energetically. This megalopa is the final larval stage of true crabs, preceding the benthic juvenile http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 1 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM] Arthropoda stage and following several zoeal stages. One of the most recognizable brachyurans ( also known as true crabs) along the Pacific coast is the Dungeness crab ( Cancer magister), a species with considerable commercial and cultural value in the region.

Anomuran Crabs This zoea of a porcelain crab ( Petrolisthes eriomerus, 3 mm in length) is well defended from potential predators; notice its long, inflexible rostral spine. The porcelain crab belongs to the group known as anomuran crabs, which include hermit, porcellanid, lithodid, and galatheid crabs. The zoea uses its first two pairs of thoracic appendages, the maxillipeds, to swim, making it one of the more agile planktonic animals. The zoea will develop into a megalopa form, sometimes referred as a glaucothoe, and then into a functional adult.

http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 2 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM] Arthropoda Copepods Copepods are the most abundant multicellular animals in the world, living in both freshwater and marine environments. The most abundant free living marine copepod is the calanoid ( seen on the right); it is recognizable by the long first antennae, which it flicks in swimming locomotion. This type of copepod uses mouth parts called maxillae to scoop phytoplankton, small invertebrates ( including other copepods), or fish larvae from the water. Copepods are also the primary consumers of phytoplankton and are an important food source to fish, baleen whales, and other invertebrates. Copepods have separate sexes. In some species one can distinguish males from females by the differences in antennae or appendages. In calanoidsk, attraction to the opposite sex occurs through detection of chemical pheromones in the water column. When courting, males will swim in a somersaulting fashion which is thought to increase the opportunity for contact with the females. Females might not be as excited to reproduce and may struggle against the males, which use their modified appendages to grasp and transfer sperm packaged into structures called spermatophores. Normally only one spermatophore is deposited per female but, at times when there are alot of male competitors some species of females will http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 3 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM] Arthropoda mate with several males and store multiple spermatophores.

In all copepods, fertilization occurs when the egg passes out the female genital tract. Many copepods carry the eggs in sacs on the body; calanoids carry one egg sac as seen above. Development of the eggs depends strongly on sea temperature ( see development of eggs at different temperatures), species, and egg size. The reproductive season depends on the species and its location.

Barnacles This larval stage, called a nauplius, is found in barnacles, copepods, penaeid shrimps, and ostracods. It swims by using its jointed appendages that are moved by muscle contraction. These larvae have a nauplier eye, made up of photoreceptor cells that are thought to give rise to the photoreceptors in some adult forms. They frequently molt ( shed their hard outer skeleton) to http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 4 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM] Arthropoda enable growth during this phase. Barnacles are hermaphrodites. They release their larvae into the water column at the nauplius stage. After several moltings, the final larval stage before settling is called a cyprid. The cyprid stage is non feeding. For more information on adult barnacles see the Cattle Point page.

Cladocerans An example from a group of crustaceans called cladocerans is seen here. These adult animals swim using the second antennae and they feed by either filtering microscopic algae or preying on small animals. Most cladoceran females reproduce by parthenogenesis, which produces males and females without sexual recombination. However, they also http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 5 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM] Arthropoda have sexual reproduction that produces females. This marine representative, Evadne. uses the carapace as a brood chamber ( a place to store eggs). A more commonly known freshwater species is Daphnia.

Plankton Home Annelida Chaetognatha Chordata Cnidaria & Ctenophora Echinodermata Mollusca Invertebrates 2000 http:// depts. washington. edu/ fhl/ zoo432/ plankton/ plarthropoda/ plarthropoda. html ( 6 of 6) [ 4/ 9/ 2003 9: 59: 02 AM]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71413]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-415-000]

Anahau Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Anahau Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 10, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 20, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28955 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9114-9116]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03743]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0084; FRL-9942-61- Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation
of the Atlanta, GA, 1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to
Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 30, 2012, the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia, fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Atlanta Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and a
related state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area. EPA is taking the following
separate final actions related to the August 30, 2012, redesignation
request and SIP revision: Determining that the Atlanta Area is
continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; approving
into Georgia's SIP the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Atlanta Area (maintenance plan),
including the associated motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and direct PM2.5 for the
year 2024; and redesignating the Atlanta Area to attainment for the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2024
MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate for the purposes of transportation
conformity.

DATES: This rule is effective February 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0084. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, 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. Mr. Huey may be reached by phone at (404)
562-9104 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. What is the background for the actions?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards
for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of
15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking,
EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October
17, 2006, EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but
revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR
61144.
    On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA
designated the Atlanta Area as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively.
On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated designations for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and designated the Atlanta Area as
unclassifiable/attainment for that standard. See 74 FR 58688. EPA did
not promulgate designations for the 2006 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
because that NAAQS was essentially identical to the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Atlanta Area is comprised of twenty whole counties and
two partial counties in Georgia: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee,
Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton,
Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton,
and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2012, Georgia submitted a request to EPA for
redesignation of the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and a related SIP revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
published on January 11, 2016, EPA proposed to determine that the
Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS; to approve, as a revision to the Georgia SIP, the State's 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the 2024
MVEBs for NOX and direct PM2.5, for the Atlanta
Area; and to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\ See 81 FR 1144. In that notice, EPA
also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy
determination for the NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs
for the Area. No adverse comments were received on the January 11,
2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Georgia's submittal and the
rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In section IX of EPA's January 11, 2016, NPR, EPA
inadvertently referenced ``NOX and VOC MVEBs'' where the
notice should have read ``NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs,'' consistent with numerous other such references in the
notice. See 81 FR 1161, 2nd and 3rd columns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the counties in the Atlanta Area, found at 40 CFR 81.311, from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Approval of Georgia's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan
into the SIP for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Atlanta Area as described in the NPR. The maintenance plan
establishes NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for 2024
for the Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for
evaluation of potential violations. The 2024 NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs are 44,430 tons per year (tpy) and 2,281 tpy,
respectively, for the Area.

III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding Georgia's
request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and associated SIP revision. First, EPA
is determining that the Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving and
incorporating the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the
NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for 2024, into the
Georgia SIP. Third, EPA is determining that Georgia has met the
criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the Atlanta Area for
redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On this basis,
EPA is approving Georgia's redesignation request for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. As mentioned above,
approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation
of the counties in the Atlanta Area for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40
CFR part 81.
    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established NOx and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for the Atlanta Area
adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months
from this final rule, the transportation partners must demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good
cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the Area from
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, and section
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State
of various requirements for the Atlanta Area. For these reasons, EPA
finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become
effective on the date of publication of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are 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);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 25, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney.
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area'' to the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or         State
           provision               nonattainment    submittal date/       EPA approval date         Explanation
                                        area        effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance    Barrow, Bartow,           8/30/12  2/24/16 [Insert citation of   ..............
 Plan for the Atlanta Area.       Carroll,                           publication].
                                  Cherokee,
                                  Clayton, Cobb,
                                  Coweta, DeKalb,
                                  Douglas,
                                  Fayette,
                                  Forsyth, Fulton,
                                  Gwinnett, Hall,
                                  Henry, Newton,
                                  Paulding,
                                  Rockdale,
                                  Spalding and
                                  Walton Counties
                                  in their
                                  entireties and
                                  portions of
                                  Heard and Putnam
                                  Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81-DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.311, the table entitled ``Georgia--1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS'' is amended under ``Atlanta, GA:'' by revising
the entries for the counties to read as follows:

Sec.  81.311  Georgia

* * * * *

                                        Georgia--1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\                         Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type              Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA:
    Barrow County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Bartow County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Carroll County..............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Cherokee County.............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Clayton County..............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Cobb County.................         2/24/16  Attainment
    Coweta County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    DeKalb County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Douglas County..............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Fayette County..............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Forsyth County..............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Fulton County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Gwinnett County.............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Hall County.................         2/24/16  Attainment
    Heard County (part).........         2/24/16  Attainment
        The northeast portion
         that extends north of
         33 degrees 24 minutes
         (north) to the Carroll
         County border and east
         of 85 degrees 3 minutes
         (west) to the Coweta
         County border.
    Henry County................         2/24/16  Attainment
    Newton County...............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Paulding County.............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Putnam County (part)........         2/24/16  Attainment
        The area described by
         U.S. Census 2000 block
         group identifier 13-237-
         9603-1.
    Rockdale County.............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Spalding County.............         2/24/16  Attainment
    Walton County...............         2/24/16  Attainment

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-03743 Filed 2-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28528-28529]
[DOCID:fr21my07-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of
May 21, 2007:
    Open Meetings will be held on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 9 a.m.,
Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 9 a.m. and Friday, May 25, 2007 at 9 a.m., in
the Auditorium, Room L-002. A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday,
May 24, 2007 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May
23, 2007 at 9 a.m. will be:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt interpretive
guidance for management regarding its evaluation and assessment of
internal control over financial reporting. The Commission will also
consider whether to adopt amendments to Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
and 15d-15(c) that would make it clear that an evaluation that complies
with the Commission's interpretive guidance would satisfy the annual
management evaluation required by those rules. In addition, the
Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to Rules 1-
02(a)(2) and 2-02(f) of Regulation S-X to require the expression of a
single opinion directly on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting by the auditor in its attestation report. Finally,
the Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to Exchange
Act Rule 12b-2 and Rule 1-02 of Regulation S-X to define certain terms.
    2. The Commission will consider a number of rule proposals
addressing the registration and disclosure requirements for smaller
companies, as well as private offerings of securities, including
whether:
     To propose amendments to increase the number of companies
eligible for the scaled disclosure and reporting requirements for
smaller reporting companies;
     To propose amendments to expand the eligibility
requirements of Form S-3 and Form F-3 to permit registration of primary
offerings by companies with a public float of less than $75 million,
subject to restrictions on the amount of securities sold in any one-
year period;
     To propose exemptions from the registration requirements
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for grants of compensatory
employee stock options by non-reporting companies;
     To propose a new Regulation D exemption for offers and
sales of securities to a newly defined subset of ``accredited
investors,'' as well as to propose revisions to the Regulation D

definition of ``accredited investor,'' disqualification provisions, and
integration safe harbor and to provide interpretive guidance regarding
integration;
     To propose revisions to Form D and mandate electronic
filing of Form D; and
     To propose amendments to Rule 144 to revise the holding
period for the resale of restricted securities, simplify compliance for
non-affiliates, revise the Form 144 filing thresholds, and codify
certain staff interpretations, as well as to propose amendments to Rule
145.
    3. The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules to implement
provisions of the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May
24, 2007 at 9 a.m. will be:
    The Commission will hold a roundtable discussion regarding proxy
voting mechanics.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 24, 2007 at 2 p.m. will be.
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Resolution of litigation claims;
    Regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
    Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Friday, May
25, 2007 at 9 a.m. will be:
    The Commission will hold a roundtable discussion regarding
proposals of shareholders.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9743 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50748-50750]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20573]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67670; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-076]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to its Automatic Order Handling Process

August 15, 2012.
    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 August 2, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 its rules regarding its automatic
order handling process. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding its automatic
order handling process. The proposed rule change adds subparagraph (vi)
to Rule 6.13(b) to codify how the CBOE Hybrid System \3\ handles market
orders to sell in option series for which the national best bid in the
series is zero (``no-bid series'').\4\ If the CBOE Hybrid System
receives during the trading day or has resting in the electronic book
after the opening of trading a market order to sell in a no-bid series,
it handles the order as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The CBOE Hybrid System is a trading platform that allows
automatic executions to occur electronically and open outcry trades
to occur on the floor of the Exchange. To operate in this ``hybrid''
environment, the Exchange has a dynamic order handling system that
has the capability to route orders to the trade engine for automatic
execution and book entry, to Trading Permit Holder and PAR Official
workstations located in the trading crowds for manual handling, and/
or to other order management terminals generally located in booths
on the trading floor for manual handling. Where an order is routed
for processing by the Exchange order handling system depends on
various parameters configured by the Exchange and the order entry
firm itself.
    \4\ The Exchange notes that, for singly listed series, the
national best bid is equivalent to the Exchange's best bid and the
national best offer is equivalent to the Exchange's best offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the Exchange best offer in that series is less than or
equal to $0.30, then the CBOE Hybrid System will consider, for the
remainder of the trading day, the market order as a limit order to sell
with a limit price equal to the minimum trading increment applicable to
the series and enter the order into the electronic book behind limit
orders to sell at the minimum increment that are already resting in the
book.
     If the Exchange best offer in that series is greater than
$0.30, then the CBOE Hybrid System will route the market order to sell
to PAR or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry
firm's booth. If the market order is not eligible to route to PAR, then
it will be cancelled.
    The Exchange's Rules are currently silent on how the CBOE Hybrid
System handles market orders to sell in no-bid series. The Exchange
believes that proposed Rule 6.13(b)(vi) will clarify for investors how
the CBOE Hybrid System handles these orders.\5\ The Exchange

believes that the automatic handling of market orders to sell in no-bid
series if the Exchange best offer is less than or equal to $0.30
reduces the manual handling of orders and facilitates the CBOE Hybrid
System's automatic handling process. Additionally, the $0.30 threshold
serves as a protection feature for investors in certain situations,
such as when a series is no-bid because the last bid traded just prior
to the entry of the market order to sell. The purpose of this threshold
is to limit the automatic handling of market orders to sell in no-bid
series to only those for true zero-bid options, as options in no-bid
series with an offer of more than $0.30 are likely not worthless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes for informational purposes that other
options exchanges have rules that address how their systems handle
market orders to sell no-bid series. See, e.g., NASDAQ OMX PHLX
(``Phlx'') Rule 1080(i) (which provides that the Phlx system will
convert market orders to sell a no-bid series to limit orders to
sell with a limit price of the minimum trading increment applicable
to that series that are received when Phlx's disseminated quotation
in the series has a bid/ask differential less than or equal to
$0.25, and will place the limit orders on the book).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if the CBOE Hybrid System receives a market order to
sell in a no-bid series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the
Exchange best offer is $0.20, the CBOE Hybrid System will consider, for
the remainder of the trading day, the order as a limit order with a
price of $0.01 and submit it to the electronic book behind other limit
orders to sell at the minimum increment that are already resting in the
book. At that point, even if the series is no-bid because, for example,
the last bid just traded and the limit order trades at $0.01, the next
bid entered after the trade would not be higher than $0.20.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If the order does not execute during the trading day as a
limit order and remains outstanding after the close of trading
(i.e., a good-til-cancelled order), the CBOE Hybrid System at that
time will no longer consider the order as a limit order and will
again handle the order as a market order to sell after the close of
trading. The market order will stay on the electronic book until the
opening of the next trading day (or until cancelled), at which point
it may execute during the open or, if it remains unexecuted after
the opening of trading, it will either execute with the best bid at
the time or, if the series is still no-bid, again be handled
pursuant to proposed Rule 6.13(b)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if the CBOE Hybrid System receives a market order to sell
in a no-bid series with a minimum increment of $0.01 and the Exchange
best offer is $1.20 (because, for example, the last bid of $1.00 just
traded), the CBOE Hybrid System will instead route the order to PAR
(or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry firm's
booth). Manual handling of the order provides the entering firm with a
potential opportunity to trade at a better price, since the next bid
entered in that series is likely to be much higher than $0.01.\7\ It
would be unfair to the entering firm to let its market order trade as a
limit order for $0.01 because, for example, the firm submitted the
order during the brief time when there were no disseminated bids in a
series trading significantly higher than the minimum increment. Once
entered into PAR, the appropriate PAR Official \8\ will review the
terms of the order and handle the order as set forth in Rule 7.12 (for
example, the PAR Official may bring the order to the trading crowd or
enter the order into the electronic book). PAR Officials must use due
diligence to execute orders that they receive at their PAR workstations
at the best prices available to them under the Exchange Rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Routing the market order to PAR or the order entry firm's
booth provides for an alternative means through which the order may
be executed before it is simply cancelled.
    \8\ A ``PAR Official'' is an Exchange employee or independent
contractor whom the Exchange may designate as being responsible for
(a) operating the PAR workstation in a DPM trading crowd with
respect to the classes of options assigned to him/her; (b) when
applicable, maintaining the book with respect to the classes of
options assigned to him/her; and (c) effecting proper executions of
orders placed with him/her. The PAR Official may not be affiliated
with any Trading Permit Holder that is approved to act as a Market-
Maker. See Rule 7.12(a).
    \9\ Rule 7.12(b)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The $0.30 threshold has been in place for a number of years, and
the Exchange believes the threshold is reasonable. The Exchange notes
that this threshold is less than the acceptable price range (``APR'')
in the price check parameter provision in Rule 6.13(b)(v). Pursuant to
that provision, the CBOE Hybrid System will not automatically execute a
marketable order if the width between the national best bid and
national best offer is not within the APR, which for an option contract
with a bid of less than $2 may not be less than $0.375.\10\ Instead,
the CBOE Hybrid System will route the order to PAR or the order entry
firm's booth, or if the order is not eligible to route to PAR, it will
be cancelled. Notwithstanding this provision, proposed Rule 6.13(b)(vi)
allows for the potential execution of market orders to sell in no-bid
series with offers less than [sic] \11\ $0.30 as limit orders at the
price of a minimum increment. If the threshold in proposed Rule
6.13(b)(vi) were higher, the risk of having a market order trade at a
minimum increment in a series that is not truly no-bid would increase.
This risk of execution is not present in the price check parameter
provision in Rule 6.13(b)(v), and therefore the Exchange believes a
wider APR is appropriate for that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 6.13(b)(v) also provides that the CBOE Hybrid System
will not automatically execute eligible orders that are marketable
if the execution would follow an initial partial execution on the
Exchange and would be at a subsequent price that is not within an
acceptable tick distance from the initial execution. The APR for
purposes of Rule 6.13(b)(v) is determined by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis and may not be less than $0.375 between the bid
and offer for each option contract for which the bid is less than
$2, $0.60 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, $0.75
where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, $1.20 where
the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and $1.50 where
the bid is more than $20. An ``acceptable tick distance'' [sic] less
than two minimum increments.
    \11\ The Commission notes that CBOE's proposed rule text
actually specifies that the Exchange would convert market orders in
no-bid series to limit orders where the Exchange's best offer is
less than or equal to $.30 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change protects investors and the
public interest by providing investors with more clarity regarding the
CBOE Hybrid System's automatic order handling process--specifically how
it processes market orders to sell in no-bid series. The Exchange
believes that the automated handling of market orders to sell in no-bid
series if the Exchange best offer is $0.30 or less assists with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protects investors and the
public interest because it provides for automated handling of these
orders, ultimately resulting in more efficient executions of these
orders. The Exchange believes that the $0.30 threshold also protects
investors and assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
by preventing executions of market orders to sell in no-bid series with
higher offers at potentially extreme prices in series that are not
truly no-bid. The Exchange believes this threshold appropriately
reflects the interests of investors, as options in no-bid series with
offers higher than $0.30 are likely not worthless, and manual handling
of these orders will lead to better executions for investors than would
occur through automatic handling.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-076 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-2012-076. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-CBOE-2012-076 and should be
submitted on or before September 12, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20573 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P