[Federal Register: October 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 50991]
[DOCID:fr02oc09-73]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Emergent Health Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Emergent Health Corp. because questions have arisen regarding the
company's issuance of stock and trading in the company's stock.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
September 30, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 13, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23882 Filed 9-30-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 28285]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4216-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4216-DR), dated April
30, 2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 30, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from severe winter storms,
snowstorms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of
February 15-22, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the
Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or
proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jose M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Boyd, Boyle, Caldwell, Clark, Estill, Floyd, Harlan, Jackson,
Jessamine, Knott, Knox, Lawrence, Lee, Letcher, Lyon, Marshall,
Menifee, Metcalfe, Morgan, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Simpson,
Taylor, Washington, and Wolfe Counties for Public Assistance.
    Boyd, Boyle, Caldwell, Estill, Floyd, Jackson, Jessamine, Knott,
Lawrence, Lee, Lyon, Menifee, Morgan, Pike, Powell, Simpson, Taylor,
Washington, and Wolfe Counties for snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate the incident period.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-11974 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


                         RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 117B

                       Toxicity Characteristic Amendment
                               57 FR 23062-23063
                                 June 1, 1992
                      (RCRA Cluster III, HSWA provision)

Note:  The Toxicity Characteristic rule [55 FR 11798 (March 29, 1990); Revision Checklist 74] and its subsequent amendments [55 FR 26986 (June 29, 1001) and 57 FR 30657 (July 10, 1992); Revision Checklist 74] omitted changing the reference to the "Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic" at 261.3(a)(2)(i).  The March 3, 1992 reissuance of the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules, reissued 261.3 with that error still in it.  The June 1, 1992 amendment (57 FR 23062) to that reissued code corrected this error.  Because this change makes the Federal code more stringent, it is required and was placed in a checklist separate from the other provisions (considered optional, for States) addressing the reissuance of the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules.

Name of state:  Washington

State Statutory Authority:  Chapter 70.105 RCW

Title of Regulations:  Chapter 1730-303 WAC             Effective Date:  July 31, 2009

Date Checklist Completed: May 10, 2010

                             FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
                             FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
                           ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION
                               STATE ANALOG IS:

                                  EQUIV-ALENT
                                     LESS
                                    STRIN-
                                     GENT
                                MORE STRIN-GENT
                               BROADER IN SCOPE

           PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

                              SUBPART A - GENERAL

DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

change "Extraction Procedure Toxicity characteristic" to "Toxicity Characteristic"
261.3(a)(2)(i)
No direct analog, but use 070(3), except (a)(iii) and (c)
More stringent because the state does not exclude mining wastes
                                       X

                                       X


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22568-22572]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80636; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-05)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Schedule of Fees
to Amend Pricing Related to Options Overlying NDX and MNX

May 10, 2017.
    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 April 25, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to
amend pricing related to options overlying NDX \3\ and MNX,\4\ as
described further below. While changes to the Schedule of Fees pursuant
to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated
these changes to be operative on May 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NDX represents options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under
the symbol NDX (``NDX'').
    \4\ MNX represents options on one-tenth the value of the Nasdaq
100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (``MNX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees to make changes to pricing related to NDX and MNX. The
proposed changes are discussed in the following sections.
Fees and Rebates in NDX
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to make pricing
changes related to NDX. The Exchange notes that NDX is transitioning to
be exclusively listed on the Exchange and its affiliated markets in
2017.\5\ In light of this transition, the Exchange seeks to amend its
NDX pricing structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange and its affiliates will exclusively list NDX in
the near future upon expiration of open expiries in this product on
other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, as set forth in Section I of the Schedule of Fees, the
Exchange provides volume-based maker rebates to Market Maker \6\ and
Priority Customer \7\ orders in Non-Penny Symbols \8\ in four tiers
based on a member's average daily volume (``ADV'') in the following
categories: (1) Total Affiliated Member ADV,\9\ and (2) Priority
Customer Maker ADV,\10\ as shown in the table below.\11\ In addition,
the Exchange charges volume-based taker fees to market participants
based on achieving these volume thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term Market Maker refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. Market Maker
orders sent to the Exchange by an Electronic Access Member (``EAM'')
are assessed fees and rebates at the same level as Market Maker
orders.
    \7\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in GEMX Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \8\ ``Non-Penny Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Penny Symbols. NDX is a Non-Penny Symbol.
    \9\ The Total Affiliated Member ADV category includes all volume
in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker
volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation,
and QCC mechanisms.
    \10\ The Priority Customer Maker ADV category includes all
Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols.
    \11\ All eligible volume from affiliated Members will be
aggregated in determining applicable tiers, provided there is at
least 75% common ownership between the Members as reflected on each
Member's Form BD, Schedule A. The highest tier threshold attained
above applies retroactively in a given month to all eligible traded
contracts and applies to all eligible market participants. Any day
that the market is not open for the entire trading day or the
Exchange instructs members in writing to route their orders to other
markets may be excluded from the ADV calculation; provided that the
Exchange will only remove the day for members that would have a
lower ADV with the day included.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Total affiliated    Priority customer
              Tier                    member ADV           maker ADV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..........................  0-99,999..........  0-19,999.
Tier 2..........................  100,000-224,999...  20,000-99,999.
Tier 3..........................  225,000-349,999...  100,000-149,999.
Tier 4..........................  350,000 or more...  150,000 or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange provides a maker rebate to Market Maker
orders in Non-Penny Symbols that is $0.40 per contract in Tier 1, $0.42
per contract in Tier 2, $0.50 per contract in Tier 3, and $0.75 per
contract in Tier 4. The Exchange also provides a maker rebate to
Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols that is $0.75 per
contract in Tier 1 (or $0.76 per contract for members that execute a
Priority Customer Maker ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a given
month), $0.80 per contract in Tier 2, $0.85 per contract in Tier 3, and
$1.05 per contract in Tier 4. Additionally, the Exchange provides a
maker rebate to Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker,\12\ Firm Proprietary
\13\/Broker-Dealer,\14\ and Professional Customer \15\ orders in Non-
Penny Symbols that is $0.25 per contract.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \13\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \14\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \15\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \16\ The maker rebates for these market participants are not
volume-based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also charges volume-based taker fees in Non-Penny
Symbols to market participants based on achieving the volume thresholds
in the table above. Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for
Non-Priority Customer \17\ orders in Non-Penny Symbols that is $0.89
per contract, regardless of the tier achieved.\18\ The Exchange also
charges a taker fee for

Priority Customer orders that is $0.82 per contract for Tier 1 and
$0.81 per contract for Tiers 2 through 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Non-Priority Customer includes Market Maker, Non-Nasdaq
GEMX Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional
Customer.
    \18\ Non-Priority Customer orders are also charged the taker fee
for trades executed during the opening rotation. Priority Customer
orders executed during the opening rotation receive the applicable
maker rebate based on the tier achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, different taker fees are charged for trades executed
against a Priority Customer in Non-Penny Symbols. In particular, Non-
Priority Customer orders are charged a taker fee of $1.10 per contract
for trades executed against a Priority Customer. Priority Customer
orders are charged a taker fee of $0.85 per contract for trades
executed against a Priority Customer. Orders in Non-Penny Symbols that
do not trade against a Priority Customer are currently charged at the
rates described in the paragraph above and as set forth in the Non-
Penny Symbols table in Section I of the Schedule of Fees.
    The Exchange also currently assesses different fees for regular
Non-Penny Symbol orders executed in the Exchange's crossing mechanisms,
as set forth in Schedule I of the Schedule of Fees (such orders,
``Auction Orders''). Specifically, the Exchange charges a fee for Non-
Priority Customer Crossing Orders \19\ (excluding PIM orders) in Non-
Penny Symbols. This fee is currently $0.20 per contract for Non-
Priority Customer orders on both the originating and contra side of a
Crossing Order. The Exchange does not assess a fee for Priority
Customer Crossing Orders (excluding PIM orders) in Non-Penny Symbols.
The Exchange also charges a separate fee for Crossing Orders in Non-
Penny Symbols for PIM orders only. This fee is currently $0.05 per
contract for all Non-Priority Customer orders executed in the PIM, and
also for Priority Customer orders on the contra-side of a PIM auction.
There is no fee for Priority Customer orders on the agency side of a
PIM auction. Lastly, for Responses to Crossing Orders \20\ (excluding
PIM orders) in Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange charges a fee of $0.89
per contract for Non-Priority Customers orders and a fee of $0.82 per
contract for Priority Customer orders. For all Responses to Crossing
Orders executed in the PIM, the Exchange charges a $0.05 per contract
fee for all market participant types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM'') or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross
order. For purposes of this Fee Schedule, orders executed in the
Block Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.
    \20\ ``Responses to Crossing Order'' is any contra-side interest
(i.e., orders & quotes) submitted after the commencement of an
auction in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism or PIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of NDX's transition to becoming exclusively listed, the
Exchange seeks to amend its pricing structure. Specifically, the
Exchange seeks to eliminate the current pricing structure for NDX by
excluding this index option from the fees and rebates applicable to all
Non-Penny Symbol orders, and instead adopt standard transaction fees as
set forth in a new table in Section I of the Schedule of Fees.\21\ The
Exchange also seeks to eliminate the maker rebates for all market
participant orders in NDX.\22\ As such, all Non-Priority Customer
orders \23\ in NDX (including Non-Priority Customer Auction Orders)
will be assessed a transaction fee of $0.75, which will be uniform for
these market participants, regardless of the tier achieved.\24\ All
Priority Customer orders in NDX (including Priority Customer Auction
Orders) will not be assessed fees in any of the volume-based tiers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange will therefore add note 6 in Section I of the
Schedule of Fees to provide that the fees set forth in the new
pricing table for index options will apply only to NDX. Furthermore,
note 6 will state that these fees are assessed to all executions in
NDX to clarify that the proposing pricing also applies to Auction
Orders in NDX.
    \22\ Orders in NDX will continue, however, to count toward
volume-based tiers under the proposed pricing structure. As such,
maker rebates will no longer be paid on NDX contracts, but NDX
contracts will count toward the volume requirement to qualify for a
rebate tier. For example, a Market Maker that executes a Total
Affiliated Member ADV of 350,000 contracts in a given month would
normally qualify for the maker rebate of $0.75 per contract in Tier
4. With the proposed changes, that Market Maker would not be paid a
maker rebate for trades in NDX, but its executions in NDX would
still count towards the monthly volume calculation (i.e., to reach
the Total Affiliated Member ADV Tier 4 threshold of 350,000
contracts).
    \23\ Market Maker orders in NDX sent to the Exchange by an EAM
will continue to be assessed fees at the same level as Market Maker
orders in NDX.
    \24\ The Exchange will therefore add note 10 in Section I of the
Schedule of Fees to provide that this fee will not be subject to
tier discounts. Orders in NDX, however, will still count toward
volume-based tiers. For example, a Market Maker that executes a
Total Affiliated Member ADV of 350,000 contracts in a given month
would normally be charged a taker fee of $0.89 per contract for
orders in Non-Penny Symbols. With the proposed changes, that Market
Maker would pay a fee of $0.75 for trades in NDX, regardless of the
tier achieved. That Market Maker's executions in NDX, however, would
still be counted towards the monthly volume calculation (i.e., to
reach the Total Affiliated Member ADV Tier 4 threshold of 350,000
contracts). See also note 22 above.
    \25\ See notes 22 and 24 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge for NDX and MNX
    Currently, a number of index options are traded on the Exchange
pursuant to license agreements for which the Exchange charges license
surcharges. As set forth in Section II.B of the Schedule of Fees, the
Exchange currently charges a $0.22 per contract license surcharge for
all orders in NDX and MNX other than Priority Customer orders. For NDX
only, the Exchange is proposing to amend Section II.B of the Schedule
of Fees to increase the Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge from
$0.22 to $0.25 per contract (``NDX Surcharge''), and to relocate the
NDX Surcharge to note 9 in Section I of the Schedule of Fees, instead
of stating the pricing within the current table in Section II.B of the
Schedule of Fees. The proposed increase to $0.25 per contract will
align the Exchange's NDX Surcharge with those of its affiliated
markets, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and NASDAQ
PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ISE's Schedule of Fees, Section IV.B. See also Phlx's
Pricing Schedule, Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it relates to MNX, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the $0.22
Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge (``MNX Surcharge''), and
proposes to remove any references to MNX currently in Section II.B of
the Schedule of Fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\27\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\30\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-

based approach.\31\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended
in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \31\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \32\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \33\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees and Rebates in NDX
    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing changes for NDX are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as NDX
transitions to an exclusively-listed product. Similar to other
proprietary products, the Exchange seeks to recoup the operational
costs for listing proprietary products.\34\ Also, pricing by symbol is
a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to
incentivize order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution in
particular products. Other options exchanges price by symbol.\35\
Further, the Exchange notes that with its products, market participants
are offered an opportunity to either transact options overlying NDX or
separately execute options overlying PowerShares QQQ Trust
(``QQQ'').\36\ Offering products such as QQQ provides market
participants with a variety of choices in selecting the product they
desire to utilize to transact NDX.\37\ When exchanges are able to
recoup costs associated with offering proprietary products, it
incentivizes growth and competition for the innovation of additional
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ By way of example, in analyzing an obvious error, the
Exchange would have additional data points available in establishing
a theoretical price for a multiply listed option as compared to a
proprietary product, which requires additional analysis and
administrative time to comply with Exchange rules to resolve an
obvious error.
    \35\ See pricing for Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') on Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's (``CBOE'') Fees Schedule.
    \36\ QQQ is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg].
    \37\ By comparison, a market participant may trade options
overlying RUT or separately the market participant has the choice of
trading iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM'') Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares options, which are also multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the existing fee and
rebate structure for NDX orders, and instead adopt standard transaction
fees for all such orders. Specifically, the proposed pricing changes
for NDX will result in a flat fee of $0.75 per contract for all Non-
Priority Customer NDX orders (including Non-Priority Customer Auction
Orders), and no fees for any Priority Customer NDX orders (including
Priority Customer Auction Orders). The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to eliminate the maker rebates for all market participant
orders in NDX because it is similar to other exchanges, which do not
provide rebates for certain proprietary products. On Phlx, no rebates
are paid on NDX contracts.\38\ Additionally, C2 Options Exchange, Inc.
(``C2'') does not provide any rebates for RUT, which is another broad-
based index option and similar proprietary product.\39\ Furthermore,
the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate the maker
rebate for Priority Customer orders in NDX because even after the
elimination of the rebate, Priority Customer orders (including Priority
Customer Auction Orders) in NDX will not be assessed any fees under the
proposed pricing structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule, Section B.
    \39\ See pricing for RUT on C2's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange's proposal to eliminate the maker rebates for
all market participant orders in NDX is an equitable allocation and is
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will eliminate the
rebate for all similarly-situated market participant types. As noted
above, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to eliminate the rebate for Priority Customer orders as
well because these orders (including Priority Customer Auction Orders)
will no longer be assessed any fees under the proposed pricing
structure.
    The proposed pricing changes for NDX will result in a uniform fee
of $0.75 per contract for all Non-Priority Customer orders (including
Non-Priority Customer Auction Orders), and no fees for all Priority
Customer orders (including Priority Customer Auction Orders). While the
proposed $0.75 transaction fee for all Non-Priority Customer NDX orders
is higher than the current fees assessed to all Non-Priority Customer
Crossing Orders and PIM orders in Non-Penny Symbols (including NDX),
the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for NDX is reasonable
because the increased fees in those categories are offset by decreased
fees proposed in other categories. In particular, the proposed $0.75
fee is lower than the existing taker fees and existing fees for
Responses to Crossing Orders (excluding PIM), in both cases currently
assessed to all market participant orders in Non-Penny Symbols
(including NDX). Additionally, as it relates to all Non-Priority
Customers other than Market Makers, the increased fee amounts for Non-
Priority Customer Crossing Orders and PIM orders in NDX are reasonable
because the total fee of $1.00 per contract under the Exchange's
proposal is comparable to the total amounts charged for similar
proprietary products on other exchanges. For example, C2 charges all
market participants other than public customers and C2 market makers a
$0.55 transaction fee and a $0.45 index license surcharge fee in RUT,
for a total of $1.00.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See C2's Fees Schedule, Section 1C. As it relates to the
market participants noted above, C2 applies the $0.55 transaction
fee to all executions in RUT other than trades on the open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed uniform $0.75 per contract fee for Non-
Priority Customer orders in NDX is reasonable because it is in line
with Phlx's $0.75 per contract options transaction charge in NDX
assessed to all electronic market participant orders other than
customer orders.\41\ Finally, the Exchange will not charge a
transaction fee for any regular Priority Customer orders in NDX, which
also is in line with Phlx, where customers are not charged an options
transaction charge in NDX.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Phlx's Pricing Schedule, Section II.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed $0.75 per contract fee for all Non-Priority
Customer orders in NDX is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly assess a $0.75 per
contract fee for all such market participant orders. The Exchange
believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess this
fee on all participants except Priority Customers because the Exchange
seeks to encourage Priority Customer order flow and the liquidity such
order flow brings to the marketplace, which in turn benefits all market
participants.

Non-Priority Customer License Surcharge for NDX and MNX
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the NDX
Surcharge from $0.22 to $0.25 is reasonable because it is in line with
the options surcharge of $0.25 for NDX transactions on ISE and Phlx,
and is in fact lower than the $0.45 C2 Options Exchange surcharge
applicable to non-public customer transactions in RUT.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See C2's Fees Schedule, Section 1D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the NDX
Surcharge is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange will apply the increase to all similarly-situated
members. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess this increased surcharge on all participants
except Priority Customers because the Exchange seeks to encourage
Priority Customer order flow and the liquidity such order flow brings
to the marketplace, which in turn benefits all market participants.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that its proposal to remove any
references to MNX in Section II.B of the Schedule of Fees is reasonable
because the Exchange seeks to eliminate the $0.22 MNX Surcharge. The
Exchange's proposal to remove references to the MNX Surcharge is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
eliminate the surcharge for all similarly-situated members.

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 inter-market or intra-market competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the proposed changes to adopt
separate pricing for orders in NDX will result in total fees for orders
in NDX becoming more uniform across all classes of market participants,
while still permitting Priority Customers to transact in NDX free of
any transaction charge. Likewise, the increase in the NDX Surcharge
will impact all Non-Priority Customers equally, and is designed to
raise revenue for the Exchange without negatively impacting Priority
Customers whose orders may enhance market quality for all Exchange
members. Removing the maker rebate will also enhance the Exchange's
ability to offer other rebates or reduced fees that could incentivize
behavior that would enhance market quality on the Exchange, which would
benefit all members.\44\ Finally, the Exchange's proposal to remove any
references to MNX from Section II.B of the Schedule of Fees will not
have an impact on competition as it is simply designed to eliminate the
MNX Surcharge for all Non-Priority Customers. Lastly, it is also
important to note that notwithstanding the proposed fee changes to NDX,
members may continue to separately execute options overlying
PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ'').\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The Exchange offers rebates to market participants to
encourage behavior on the Exchange such as adding more liquidity in
a certain product.
    \45\ By comparison, a market participant may trade options
overlying RUT or separately the market participant has the choice of
trading iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM'') Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares options, which are also multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\46\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \47\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \47\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2017-05 on the subject line.

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-GEMX-2017-05. 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 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-GEMX-2017-05 and should be
submitted on or before June 6, 2017.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09811 Filed 5-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56658]
[DOCID:fr28se05-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-677-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Waiver of Gas
Research Institute Refund

September 21, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 16, 2005, Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing a motion to request a waiver
from its de minimis refund obligation of $106.58 regarding over-
collection of the Gas Research Institute surcharge covering a six year
period.
    Midwestern is requesting approval to donate such amount to the
American Red Cross to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina rather than
issue refund checks to its customers.
    Midwestern states that it has served copies of the motion upon
contracted shippers and interested state commissions.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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 online 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 September 29, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5281 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77594]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty seventh meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held January 27-29 2015 from 8:30 a.m.-5:00
p.m. on January 27-28 and 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on January 29.

ADDRESSES: FAA Long Beach Aircraft Evaluation Group 3960 Paramount
Blvd. Lakewood, California 90712 1st Floor Conference Rooms A, B, & C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Etherington,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(319) 295-5233 or mobile at (319) 431-
7154, Patrick Krohn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
mobile at<PHONE_NUMBER> and The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: RTCA contact is Jennifer
Iverson<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will
include the following:

Tuesday, January 27

Plenary discussion (sign-in at 08:00 a.m.)
     Introductions and administrative items
     Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
     Review of terms of reference (if needed)
     Status of DO-341A
     DO-3XX FRAC Comment Review and Disposition

Wednesday, January 28

Plenary discussion
     DO-3XX FRAC Comment Review and Disposition
     WG2 Draft Document

Thursday, January 29

Plenary discussion
     WG2 Draft Document
     Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action
items etc.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-30262 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46992-46995]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17745]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0084; FRL-7810-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU80

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Extension of the Laboratory
and Analytical Use Exemption for Essential Class I Ozone-Depleting
Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is taking final action to
revise regulations governing the production and import of class I
ozone-depleting substances in the United States to indefinitely extend
the global essential laboratory and analytical use exemption. This
exemption currently expires on December 31, 2021, and this final action
allows for continued production and import of class I substances in the
United States solely for laboratory and analytical uses that have not
been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as nonessential.
This final action is taken under the Clean Air Act, and is consistent
with a decision by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer to extend the global laboratory and
analytical use exemption indefinitely beyond 2021. The proposed rule
associated with this final action was published on August 7, 2020, and
we received no adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0084. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be
publicly available, e.g., 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. All other
publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov. Due to public health concerns related to
COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the
public with limited exceptions. Our Docket Center staff will continue
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For
further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, telephone number:
202-564-6658; or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also visit
our website at https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/phaseout-exemptions-laboratory-and-analytical-uses for further information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
    A. What is the Agency's authority for this final action?
    B. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking and Public Comments
    C. Potentially Impacted Entities
    D. Background of the Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

A. What is the Agency's authority for this final action?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides EPA the authority to implement the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer's
(Montreal Protocol's) phaseout schedules for ozone-depleting substances
(ODS) in the United States. Relevant to this rulemaking, CAA section
604 requires EPA to issue regulations phasing out production and
consumption of class I \1\ ODS according to a prescribed schedule; our
phaseout regulations for class I ODS are codified at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the CAA, certain ODS are classified as ``class I''
substances. Class I substances are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR
part 82, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking and Public Comments

    EPA's August 7, 2020, proposed rulemaking (see 85 FR 47940) sought
to align a provision in EPA's regulations governing the production and
import of class I ODS regarding the essential laboratory and analytical
use exemption (referred to hereafter as the ``L&A exemption'') with a
recent decision taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to extend
the global L&A exemption indefinitely.\2\ In the United States,
laboratory distributors currently supply around 1,000 laboratories, and
consumption \3\ for laboratory use was approximately 4.4 ODP-weighted
metric tons in 2018 under the L&A exemption \4\ and 4.2 ODP-weighted
metric tons in 2019 under the L&A exemption.\5\ The global L&A
exemption is implemented domestically through EPA's regulations at 40
CFR part 82, subpart A and the current exemption is in effect in the
United States through December 31, 2021. In the proposed rulemaking (85
FR 47940), EPA proposed to remove the

December 31, 2021, time restriction, allowing for continued production
and import of class I ODS in the United States after that date for
laboratory and analytical uses that have not been identified by EPA as
nonessential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Decision XXXI/5: Laboratory and Analytical Uses, available
online at: https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/meetings/thirty-first-meeting-parties/decisions/decision-xxxi5.
    \3\ Consumption is defined in Sec.  82.3 as ``production plus
imports minus exports of a controlled substance (other than
transhipments, or used controlled substances).''
    \4\ These 2018 data are available in the docket to this rule as
well as on the Montreal Protocol's Ozone Secretariat's Data Centre
web page: https://ozone.unep.org/countries/data-table.
    \5\ At the time of publication for the proposed rulemaking, the
2019 data were not yet available, but can now be found on the
Montreal Protocol's Ozone Secretariat's Data Centre web page:
https://ozone.unep.org/countries/data-table. Data specific to the
United States' amounts consumed for laboratory and analytical uses,
including 2019 data, can be found on this web page: https://ozone.unep.org/countries/profile/usa. These data have been added to
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking, which
ended on October 6, 2020, EPA received a total of two comments which
are publicly available in the docket. Both comments were in support of
our proposed action; one comment noted that the proposed action was a
cost- and time-effective revision, and the other comment supported the
notion that laboratories could continue to obtain necessary and
essential materials while being mindful of potential environmental
impacts. EPA acknowledges the comments and concludes that they support
the final action and do not require further response.

C. Potentially Impacted Entities

    This final rule may potentially impact individuals or groups that
manufacture, process, import, or distribute into commerce certain ODS
and mixtures. These impacted entities and their associated North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes may include but
are not limited to:
     Basic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 3251);
     Pharmaceutical preparations manufacturing businesses
(NAICS code 325412);
     Other chemical and allied production merchant wholesalers
(NAICS code 424690);
     Environmental consulting services (NAICS code 541620);
     Research and development in the physical, engineering, and
life sciences (NAICS code 54171); and
     Medical laboratories (NAICS code 621511).
    This list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
final action. The NAICS codes provided above may assist in determining
whether this final rule might apply to certain entities. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected, and EPA recommends that you
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if
there are applicability questions.

D. Background of the Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption

    The United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987
Montreal Protocol and ratified it on April 12, 1988. After
ratification, Congress enacted, and President George H.W. Bush signed
into law, the CAA Amendments of 1990, which included Title VI on
Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85,
Subchapter VI, to ensure, among other things, that the United States
could satisfy its obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
    The Montreal Protocol is a multinational environmental agreement to
protect Earth's ozone layer by phasing out the consumption and
production of most chemicals that deplete it. The Montreal Protocol
provides a set of schedules to phase out ODS and also provides for
mechanisms to establish certain specific and limited exemptions. For
most class I ODS, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol may agree to
grant exemptions to the ban on production and consumption of ODS for
uses that they determine to be ``essential.'' For example, with respect
to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Article 2A(4) of the Montreal Protocol
provides that the phaseout will apply ``save to the extent that the
Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is
necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be essential.'' Similar
language appears in the control provisions for other ODS, such as
halons (Article 2B), carbon tetrachloride (Article 2D), and methyl
chloroform (Article 2E). As defined by Decision IV/25 of the Parties,
``use of a controlled substance should qualify as `essential' only if:
(1) It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the
functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual
aspects); and (2) there are no available technically and economically
feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the
standpoint of environment and health.'' Decision VI/9 of the Parties
established a time-limited exemption under the Montreal Protocol for
essential laboratory and analytical uses, consistent with the
specifications in Annex II of the report of the Sixth Meeting of the
Parties (MOP), which describes conditions applied to the exemption for
laboratory and analytical uses such as purity, quantity, and
specification for cylinders and handling for these controlled
substances.
    Consistent with the flexibility allowed for by the Parties, in
2001, EPA codified a L&A exemption in its domestic regulations (see 66
FR 14760, March 13, 2001). In the preamble to that rule, EPA determined
that the statutory language in section 604 of the CAA provided grounds
for the creation of a de minimis exemption for essential laboratory and
analytical uses of certain class I ODS (id. at 14764-65). The 2001 rule
explains how the controls in place for laboratory and analytical uses
provide adequate assurance that very little, if any, environmental
damage will result from the handling and disposal of the small amounts
of class I ODS used in such applications due to the Appendix G
requirements under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, for small quantity and
high purity. For example, class I ODS must be sold in cylinders three
liters or smaller or in glass ampoules 10 milliliters or smaller, as
per Appendix G. Since issuing the original exemption, EPA has not
received information that would suggest that the current controls in
place for laboratory and analytical use do not provide adequate
assurance that very little, if any, environmental damage will result
from the handling and disposal of class I ODS used in such
applications. As discussed later in this notice, the quantities of
class I ODS used for this exemption have declined substantially since
the exemption was initially created.
    As summarized in the proposal for this final action, the Parties
subsequently issued several decisions related to the global exemption,
including periodic extensions, and EPA has also revised the exemption
in its domestic regulations several times (see 85 FR 47941-92, August
7, 2020). Under Decision XXVI/5 at the 26th MOP, the Parties extended
the global L&A exemption until December 31, 2021, which EPA implemented
domestically through a rulemaking in 2015 (see 80 FR 3885, January 26,
2015). More recently, in November 2019, at the 31st MOP, the Parties
agreed in Decision XXXI/5 to ``extend the global laboratory and
analytical-use exemption indefinitely beyond 2021, without prejudice to
the parties deciding to review the exemption at a future meeting.'' The
Decision also encourages parties to further reduce their production and
consumption of ODS for laboratory and analytical uses and to facilitate
the introduction of laboratory standards that do not require such
substances.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is finalizing its August 7, 2020, proposal to indefinitely
extend the global L&A exemption for class I ODS in 40 CFR 82.8(b). This
action makes the regulatory exemption indefinite unless or until it is
limited or eliminated through future rulemaking, i.e., EPA still has
the authority to review the scope of and need for the exemption at a
future date. Upon the effective date of this final action, the
regulations will no longer contain an expiration date for the
exemption. The list of laboratory and analytical uses codified in
Appendix G to 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, may also be revised through
new rulemakings as

alternatives are identified through new standards.
    Consistent with the proposal, this final action also contains
clarifying text to explain that the global L&A exemption allows for the
production and import of class I ODS that have been phased out in the
United States, subject to certain restrictions as described in Appendix
G to 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, and subject to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 82.13(u) through (x). The previous
text in 40 CFR 82.8(b) established the exemption for essential
laboratory and analytical uses but did not explicitly state that the
exemption is from the prohibitions on production and import of class I
ODS, although that is clear from context and the explanation in a
previous rule (see 66 FR 14760, March 13, 2001). Consistent with the
proposal, this final rule states the exemption more explicitly.
    As noted in the proposed rule, there are several reasons why the
Agency is making these changes. This action is consistent with Decision
XXXI/5 by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, and it will provide
certainty with regards to the exemption without the need for periodic
rulemakings to extend the exemption. This is important since non-ODS
replacements for class I ODS may not be identified for all uses given
the effort required to establish new analytical procedures for such
small quantities of material. While some analytical procedures have
transitioned, many ASTM International (formerly known as the American
Society for Testing and Materials) and ISO (International Organization
for Standardization) standards still require small amounts of ODS, and
it could take years for standards organizations to develop alternatives
and for laboratories to adopt the new standards.
    From an environmental impact perspective, removing the deadline
from the L&A exemption will also have little effect on the
stratospheric ozone layer due to a combination of factors including the
general decline of production and consumption of ODS for laboratory and
analytical uses in the United States and the existing controls in place
for laboratory and analytical uses.
    Exempted consumption for laboratory and analytical uses in the
United States peaked in 2004 at 55 ODP-weighted metric tons, and was
only 4.4 ODP-weighted metric tons in 2018, which is a negligible
amount.\6\ Data for 2019, which became available after the publication
date for EPA's proposed rulemaking, indicates that the exempted
consumption for laboratory and analytical uses in the United States has
decreased further to 4.2 ODP-weighted metric tons.\7\ This sharp
decline since 2004 indicates that many users (primarily laboratories)
have been able to transition from ODS even with this exemption being
available to them; as these laboratories continue to use non-ODS and/or
continue to transition to non-ODS alternatives for laboratory and
analytical uses, EPA anticipates that the decreasing trend for class I
ODS for exempted consumption will generally continue. However, certain
laboratory and analytical procedures continue to require the use of
class I ODS in the United States. In the United States, there are
currently ten laboratory distributors that supply around 1,000
laboratories with primarily carbon tetrachloride but also small
quantities of chlorobromomethane, CFCs, methyl chloroform, and methyl
bromide. Maintaining this exemption would provide laboratories with
essential class I ODS for which no alternatives are currently
available, with negligible environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These data are available in the docket to this rule as well
as on the Ozone Secretariat's Data Centre web page: https://ozone.unep.org/countries/data-table.
    \7\ These data can now be found on the Montreal Protocol's Ozone
Secretariat's Data Centre web page: https://ozone.unep.org/countries/data-table. Data specific to the United States' amounts
consumed for laboratory and analytical uses, including 2019 data,
can be found on this web page: https://ozone.unep.org/countries/profile/usa. These data have been added to the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, this action does not make any change in the controls
that are in place for laboratory and analytical uses, and as discussed
above in the section titled, ``Background of the Laboratory and
Analytical Use Exemption,'' EPA's March 13, 2001, rule explains how
these controls provide adequate assurance that very little, if any,
environmental damage will result from the handling and disposal of
small amounts of class I ODS used in such applications. Further, EPA
has the authority to review the scope of and need for the exemption at
a future date, for example if alternative methods become available or
consumption begins to increase. Lastly, as noted earlier in this
notice, we received two supportive comments and no adverse comments on
the proposed rule associated with this final action. Based on
consideration of all this information and the two comments that both
supported the proposed rule, EPA is finalizing the action as proposed.
    EPA encourages laboratories to continue ongoing efforts to
transition to methods that do not require the use of ODS, and to share
such information when available, as it could assist others in similar
situations.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0170. The laboratory and analytical use exemption
currently expires on December 31, 2021, and this action allows for
continued production and import of class I substances in the United
States solely for laboratory and analytical uses that have not been
identified by EPA as nonessential, and therefore there are no PRA
implications. This action indefinitely removes the expiration date for
the existing exemption from the prohibitions in production and import
of class I ODS.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action does not modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that apply to laboratory distributors who utilize the exemption. These
requirements will continue to apply to distributors who use the
exemption; however, the requirements are minimal and impose no
significant burden. Further, nothing in this rule compels any entity to
use the exemption. The Agency thus assumes that the burden reduction
provided by the exemption from the phaseout on production and import of
class I ODS outweighs the limited cost associated with recordkeeping
and reporting. Otherwise, laboratory distributors could choose not to
use the exemption, removing the need for relevant recordkeeping and
reporting.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does

not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. EPA periodically updates tribal officials on air
regulations through the monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air
Association and will share information on this rulemaking through this
and other fora.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
Depletion of stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the
sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth's surface. The following
studies describe the effects of excessive exposure to UV radiation on
children: (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do
sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant
melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A:1647-54; (2) Elwood JM, Japson J.
``Melanoma and sun exposure: An overview of published studies,'' Int J
Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3) Armstrong BK. ``Melanoma: Childhood or
lifelong sun exposure,'' In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS, Mackie RM, Weinstock
WA, eds. Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases (pp 63-
66), London: Blackwell Science, 1997; (4) Whiteman D, Green A.
``Melanoma and Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994; 5:564-72; (5)
Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell
carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,'' Int J Cancer
1995; 60:489-94; (6) Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Bajdik CD, et al.
``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic
skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,'' Arch Dermatol 1995; 131:157-63;
(7) Armstrong, BK. ``How sun exposure causes skin cancer: An
epidemiological perspective,'' In: Hill D, Elwood JM, English DR (eds.)
Prevention of Skin Cancer. Cancer Prevention--Cancer Causes, vol. 3 (pp
89-116). Dordrecht: Springer, 2004. However, as described in the
section above titled ``What Action is EPA Taking?'', the environmental
impacts are expected to be negligible.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The environmental impacts of this regulation are expected to be
negligible given the low level of ODS produced and imported for the L&A
exemption. As such, there are no disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects from this action on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

K. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Methyl
chloroform, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

0
2. Section 82.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.8   Grant of essential use allowances and critical use
allowances.

* * * * *
    (b) There is a global exemption for the production and import of
class I controlled substances for essential laboratory and analytical
uses, subject to the restrictions in appendix G of this subpart, and
subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements at Sec.
82.13(u) through (x). There is no amount specified for this exemption.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-17745 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:  Robert Brager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:02 PM To:  Sullivan, Tim<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kakade, Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Aron H. Schnur<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  Re: EPA Response to SunCoke

Sorry, attached the wrong letter.  Seema, thanks for letting me know.

Rob

Rob Brager Principal

<http://www.bdlaw.com/>[Beveridge & Diamond P.C.]<http://www.bdlaw.com/><http://www.bdlaw.com/>BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 201 North Charles Street Suite 2210, Baltimore, MD 21201 Office<PHONE_NUMBER>   Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>   RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<< 2016-08-17 Letter from R. Brager to P. Brooks re Coke Ovens ICR[4].pdf >>

From: Robert Brager <RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 5:41 PM To: "Sullivan, Tim" <Sullivan.Tim<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: KATIE BATTEN <KMBATTEN<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kakade, Seema" <Kakade.Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Aron H. Schnur" <ASchnur<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: EPA Response to SunCoke

Tim,

Please see the attached.  Please let me know if EPA is willing to meet with us, and if so, let's try to schedule a date.

Rob

Rob Brager Principal

<http://www.bdlaw.com/>[Beveridge & Diamond P.C.]<http://www.bdlaw.com/><http://www.bdlaw.com/>BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. 201 North Charles Street Suite 2210, Baltimore, MD 21201 Office<PHONE_NUMBER>   Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>   RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>From: "Sullivan, Tim" <Sullivan.Tim<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:02 PM To: Robert Brager <RBrager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: KATIE BATTEN <KMBATTEN<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kakade, Seema" <Kakade.Seema<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: EPA Response to SunCoke

Robert:

Attached, please find the EPA's response to your May 10, 2016 letter on behalf of SunCoke. Per the letter, please contact Seema Kakade (cc-ed) should your client require additional time to comply.

Thanks  -

Tim ___________________________________________

Timothy J. Sullivan Air Enforcement Division Office of Civil Enforcement Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC 2242A) Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> │ Email: sullivan.tim<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Help eliminate environmental violations - report tips and complaints at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 171 (Thursday, September 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 53358]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of China Fruits Corporation, Order of Suspension of
Trading

September 1, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') that there is a lack of current and accurate
information concerning the securities of China Fruits Corporation
(``CHFR'') because, among other things, of questions regarding the
accuracy and completeness of CHFR's representations to investors and
prospective investors in CHFR's public filings with the Commission and
CHFR's publicly-available press releases and other public statements.
    In particular, CHFR is delinquent in filing its Form 10-Q quarterly
report for its second quarter ended June 30, 2015, and CHFR does not
appear to have publicly responded to news reports concerning CHFR
relating to, among other things, (i) the whereabouts of Mr. Quan Long
Chen, CHFR's current or former Chief Executive Officer, President, sole
director, and controlling shareholder; (ii) the status of any investor
funds that may have been collected by or through Mr. Chen in connection
with CHFR; and, (iii) the financial condition of the company, including
the status of CHFR's business operations.
    Based on CHFR's amended Form 10-K/A annual report filed for its
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, CHFR is a Nevada corporation based
in Beijing, People's Republic of China. The company's common stock is
quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the symbol
``CHFR.'' As of August 20, 2015, the company's common stock had six
market makers and was eligible for the ``piggyback'' exception of Rule
15c2-11(f)(3).
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of CHFR.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of CHFR
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 1, 2015,
through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 15, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21975 Filed 9-1-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


U.S. Department 										55 Broadway
of Transportation										Cambridge, MA 02142

Research and
Innovative Technology
Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

July 25, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:	Ex parte meeting with EXA Corporation
FROM:		Maurice Hicks, NHTSA
TO:		Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079
This memorandum documents a meeting held on November 30, 2010 between EXA, EPA, and DOT regarding the proposed fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for model years 2014-2018.  The attendees included:
EXA:  Stephen Remondi, Doug Hatfield, and Alex Alajbegovic
EPA: Byron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Arvon Mitcham, Chien Sze, Cheryl Bynum, Rich Zhang, Sam Waltzer, and Angela Cullen
NHTSA/DOT: Angel Jackson and Maurice Hicks
The following topics were discussed during the meeting:
Background
EXA requested a meeting with EPA and NHTSA to discuss testing approaches for determining the aerodynamics drag coefficient for heavy duty tractors.
EXA stated that CFD has significant benefits over wind-tunnel testing.  Modeling has superior benefits by not being limited to a 0 degree headwind (Zero Yaw), non-moving wheels (or road conditions) and a closed source environment.  EXA has validated CFD models to several full scale wind tunnels test laboratories used by industry.  During the meeting EXA and the agencies discussed the availability of EXA's models and CFD modeling.
EXA asked the agencies to:
   a) Re-run GEM model results for baselines used by EPA with CFD results for aerodynamic inputs.
   b) Consider best practices for aerodynamic simulation considering all the tools currently available in the market.
   c) Consider best practices or approaches to moving models to public domain for validation of model results by industry.

   The agencies agreed to consider the above requests.