From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:01 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Bill Osborn; Bryan Kresak; Charles Jones; Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis; Dan Belack; Dave Hacker; David Ailor; David Fanning; Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield; Janis Deitch; Jay Cornelius; Joe Hanning; John Hill; Jonelle Scheetz; Julianne Kurdila; Katie Kistler; Keith Nagel; Krista Armentrout; Marian Gammon; Mark Poling; May, Jeffrey X; Mike Dzurinko; Nicole Siviy; Parker Adams; Patrick Smith; Peter Libell; Randy Wiler; Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle; Solomon Nyathi; Taylor Mackey; Tishie Woodwell; Traci Self; Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke ICR

Donna Lee:  The COETF's comments on draft Enclosure 1 are highlighted in the attached.  Thanks, DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< For-Redline-11-17-15-Coke ICR Intro-Enclosure I-COETF 121715.docx >>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 12:16 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Coke ICR

Hi David & Katie - We met with our division head this morning to discuss the coke ICR and issues with extended coking and industry economic status. We were told to go ahead with the ICR, but with a non-urgent schedule for the testing, meaning that we can provide ample time for facilities to get bids and schedule the testing around other obligations such as the questionnaire.
We will be looking at both extended coking and normally operating facilities in a mix to get the same 6 (by-product) +3 (heat recovery). The reduced number of facilities that would test air emissions at quench towers can remain.

I still plan to incorporate industry's request for staged-submission of the questionnaire. I had asked that the industry mark the questions (regardless of their current order) into groups based on their ease of answering, to allow more time for questions that are more difficult to answer. The industry will need to do that in their comments to be submitted end of this week/next Monday. I had made some basic cuts myself, but I think industry wanted to further subdivide, which is fine with me.

I was able to get the fenceline testing out of the ICR, I believe. So that's good news. What may be bad news from your perspective is that we were told to include processes that come under subpart L (some were already in the
ICR) so that EPA can get a head start on the LAER RTR for subpart L that's due no later than 2020. The MACT track for subpart L is also up for technology review (TR) under 112(d)(6) as of 2013 (8 yrs from 2005), which is the TR part of a RTR, so all subpart L facilities still would be included using the subpart 5C ICR.

We will try to be as stream-lined as possible with the test requests; we are still brain storming about that. Im glad fenceline is out.

I realize that this is not the outcome you had hope for. I will do as much as I can to ease the burden within these guidelines.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 56 (Friday, March 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 15100]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0027, Notice No. 10]

Northeast Corridor Safety Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NECSC) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the eighth meeting of the NECSC, a Federal
Advisory Committee mandated by section 212 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and amended by section
11305 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST
Act). The NECSC is made up of stakeholders operating on the Northeast
Corridor, and the purpose of the NECSC is to provide annual
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation. The NECSC meeting
agenda will include presentations on: Implementation of Positive Train
Control; the state of moveable bridges; New York City tunnel system
inspection and maintenance; an update to the ongoing study of
maintenance-of-way worker fatigue; state of the NEC catenary; condition
of railroad tracks adjacent to the NEC; security along the NEC; and a
general discussion of safety issues. This agenda is subject to change.

DATES: The NECSC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, April 6, 2017, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The NECSC meeting will be held at the National Housing
Center located at 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. The
meeting is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and
is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral
interpretation can be made available if requested 10 calendar days
before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenton Kilgore, NECSC
Administrative Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Larry
Woolverton, Executive Officer for Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NECSC is mandated by a statutory
provision in section 212 of the PRIIA which was amended in 2015 by
section 11305 of the FAST Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905(e)). The
NECSC is chartered by the Secretary of Transportation and is an
official Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
Title 5--Appendix.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 24905(e).

Sarah L. Inderbitzin,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-05871 Filed 3-21-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30964-30965]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC23-87-000.
    Applicants: SR Snipesville III, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of SR Snipesville III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-149-000.
    Applicants: Delta's Edge Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Delta's Edge Lessee, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-65-000.
    Applicants: AB CarVal Investors, L.P., Agilitas Energy, Inc.
    Description: Petition for Declaratory Order of Agilitas Energy,
Inc. and AB CarVal Investors, L.P.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2303-006; ER10-1246-020; ER10-1252-020; ER11-
3987-019; ER11-4055-014; ER12-1566-018; ER12-2498-024; ER12-2499-024;
ER13-764-024; ER14-1548-017; ER14-1775-012; ER14-1776-010; ER14-1927-
012; ER15-2653-005; ER16-1325-007; ER16-1326-007; ER16-1327-007; ER17-
382-009; ER17-383-009; ER17-384-009; ER17-2141-007; ER17-2142-007;
ER18-855-008; ER18-1416-008; ER18-2305-005; ER18-2306-004; ER18-2308-
005; ER18-2309-005; ER18-2310-005; ER18-2311-005; ER20-2671-006; ER21-
425-005; ER21-848-005; ER23-139-003.
    Applicants: Pleasant Hill Solar, LLC, Battle Mountain SP, LLC,
Copper Mountain Solar 5, LLC, Water Strider Solar, LLC, SF Wind
Enterprises, LLC, Rose Wind Holdings, LLC, Rose Creek Wind, LLC, K&K
Wind Enterprises, LLC, Garwind, LLC, Bobilli BSS, LLC, CED Wistaria
Solar, LLC, Panoche Valley Solar, LLC, Great Valley Solar 2, LLC, Great
Valley Solar 1, LLC, CED Ducor Solar 3, LLC, CED Ducor Solar 2, LLC,
CED Ducor Solar 1, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC, Mesquite Solar 3,
LLC, Mesquite Solar 2, LLC, Campbell County Wind Farm, LLC, CED White
River Solar 2, LLC, Broken Bow Wind II, LLC, SEP II, LLC, Copper
Mountain Solar 3, LLC, CED White River Solar, LLC, Alpaugh North, LLC,
Alpaugh 50, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 1,
LLC, Mesquite Solar 1, LLC, RWE Clean Energy Solutions, Inc., RWE Clean
Energy Wholesale Services, Inc, Adams Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Adams Wind Farm, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 5/4/23.
    Accession Number: 20230504-5221.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-615-002.
    Applicants: Prairie State Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Under ER22-615 to
be effective 2/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-983-004.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Rev in Further Compliance w/Order No. 2222 and Request
for Ext of Comp Deadline to be effective 11/1/2026.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2471-000.
    Applicants: Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 21, 2022, Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Energy Service's Request for Renewed Authorization to Undertake
Affiliate Sales.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1234-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Original WMPA, SA No.
6800; Queue No. AF2-325, Docket No. ER23-1234 to be effective 5/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1272-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Replacement Generation--Response to
Deficiency Letter to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1849-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISA, SA No. 6889; Queue No.
AF1-227 and Cancellation of IISA, SA No. 6061 to be effective 4/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1850-000.
    Applicants: Delta's Edge Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
5/9/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1851-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 6917
and ICSA, SA No. 6918; Queue No. AD1-031 to be effective 7/8/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230508-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1853-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to WEIS Tariff to
Clean-Up Use of Defined Terms to be effective 7/9/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1854-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-5-9 Grand Valley-Ute
Hydro DWA 734 0.0.0 to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1855-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-05-09_SA 3391 Ameren
IL-Maple Flats Solar Energy Center 3rd Rev GIA (J813) to be effective
4/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1856-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Exhibit B Administrative
Filing to be effective 11/15/2010.

    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1857-000.
    Applicants: Antelope Valley BESS, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession to be
effective 5/10/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1858-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
05-09_SA 4054 MP-GRE T-L IA (Two Islands) to be effective 5/9/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230509-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 9, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10327 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                               January 10, 2022

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/region08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Ref: 8P-AR

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Whitefish, MT Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis

FROM:	Kate Gregory
		Region 8, EPA
		Air Quality Planning Branch

TO: 		File

According to the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas (NAA) memo, in order to qualify for the LMP option, "The final criterion is related to mobile source emissions. The area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. It is important to consider the impact of future transportation growth in the LMP, since the level of PM-10 emissions (especially from fugitive dust) is related to the level of growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The following methodology can be found in Attachment B of the LMP Option memo, and is used to determine whether increased emissions from on-road mobile sources could, in the next 10 years, increase concentrations in the area and threaten the assumption of maintenance that underlies the LMP policy.

The equation set forth is:
                         DV + (VMTpi * DVmv) <=  MOS
Where:
      DV = design value in μg/m3
      VMTpi = projected increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the next 10 years
      DVmv = product of the design value and the fraction of the inventory represented by on-road mobile sources in the attainment year; and
      MOS = margin of safety for the relevant PM10 standard for a given area: For Whitefish the MOS is the same as the area-specific critical design value (CDV) of 129 ug/m[3].

Whitefish Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis Calculation:
Utilizing a design concentration of 97 ug/m[3]; a projected 23.34% VMT increase; and a 0.973 fraction of the inventory represented by on-road mobile sources in the attainment year the results are as follows:

         97 ug/m[3] + (0.2334 * (97 ug/m[3])(0.973)) = 119 ug/m[3]

           119 ug/m[3] < 129 ug/m[3] (current MOS of Whitefish)

Based on the above methodology, as outlined in the LMP option memo, the projected 23.34% VMT increase does not indicate that increased emissions from on-road mobile source should in the Whitefish PM10 NAA, in the next 10 years, increase concentrations in the area and threaten the assumption of maintenance.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3161-3163]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6879]

Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Timetable for
Updates to the Food and Drug Administration Data Standards Catalog for
Study Data Submitted Electronically Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the timetable for updates to the FDA Data Standards Catalog for study
data submitted electronically in new drug applications (NDAs),
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biologics license
applications (BLAs), and certain investigational new drug applications
(INDs) to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The initial
implementation timetable for submitting standardized study data in
electronic format was 24 months for NDAs, ANDAs, and applications, and
36 months for certain INDs after publication of the final guidance
``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Standardized
Study'' in December 2014. When future updates to study data standards
listed in the FDA Data Standards Catalog (Catalog) occur, these updated
standards will be required in studies with a start date no earlier than
12 months after a Federal Register notice announcing such updates is
published. When future new study data standards are listed in the
Catalog, these new standards will be required in studies with a start
date no earlier than 24 months after a Federal Register notice
announcing such new standards is published.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted,

such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security
number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing
process. Please note that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that identifies you in the body of
your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-6879 for ``Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards;
Timetable for Updates to the FDA Data Standards Catalog for Electronic
Submissions of Study Data.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1115, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5333, [email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-7911, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2014, FDA published final
guidance for industry entitled ``Providing Regulatory Submissions in
Electronic Format--Standardized Study Data'' posted on FDA's Study Data
Standards Resources web page at https://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm. The guidance implemented
the electronic submission requirements of section 745A(a) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379k-1) for
study data contained in NDAs, ANDAs, applications under subsection (a)
or (k) of section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42
U.S.C. 262), and certain INDs. The initial implementation date for the
electronic submission requirement for standardized study data was 24
months after final guidance for NDAs, ANDAs, and applications under
subsection (a) or (k) of section 351 of the PHS Act (December 17, 2016)
and 36 months after final guidance for INDs (December 17, 2017). To
provide a consistent timetable for announcing FDA's support and
requirement for future version updates and new study data standards,
the guidance states that a Federal Register notice will specify a
transition date with a specific month and day for the transition date.
When a Federal Register notice is published after March 15 of the
current calendar year, the transition date will be March 15 of the next
calendar year.
    When future version updates to supported study data standards and
new study data standards are announced in the Federal Register, they
will be required in studies that have a start date no earlier than 12
months after the transition date for version updates and no earlier
than 24 months after the transition date for new study data standards.
Table 1 presents an example of timetables for the requirement to use
future version updates and new study data standards after publication
of Federal Register notices. In the example, a new study data transport
format standard and a version update to the Study Data Tabulation Model
Implementation Guide (SDTMIG) each have a single date listed when the
standard will be required. The new study data transport format is
supported as of the date of the Federal Register notice, but will only
be required in studies that start 24 months after the transition date
of March 15, 2019. The SDTMIG version update is supported as of the
date of the Federal Register notice, but will only be required in
studies that start 12 months after the transition date of March 15,
2019.

                        Table 1--Example of Timetables for Required Study Data Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Federal Register
                                                              notice of FDA    Transition date  Date requirement
                FDA data standards catalog                  support (yyyy-mm-   (yyyy-mm-dd)    begins (yyyy-mm-
                                                                   dd)                                 dd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Study Data Transport..................................        2019-02-20        2019-03-15        2021-03-15
SDTMIG Version Update.....................................        2018-09-05        2019-03-15        2020-03-15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 17, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-01119 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 82)]
[Notices]
[Page 25171]
[DOCID:fr28ap06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. IS06-191-000, IS06-191-001, IS06-191-002]

Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice Cancelling Technical Conference

April 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the technical conference scheduled to be convened
on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 10 a.m. (EDT) at the offices of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 is cancelled. On April 19, 2006, Colonial Pipeline
Company filed a withdrawal of Supplement No. 10 to FERC 68 and
Supplement No. 3 to FERC 81. This withdrawal terminates the proceeding
in Docket Nos. IS06-191-000, et al. For further information, please
contact Joe Athey at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6390 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65228]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0268; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-2]

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Chilicothe, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace for Chilicothe, MO.
Airport management and air traffic control facility managers have
determined that the Class E surface area airspace at Chilicothe
Municipal Airport is no longer necessary and will not compromise the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 28, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to remove Class E airspace for
Chilicothe, MO (75 FR 36587) Docket No. FAA-2010-0268. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective
September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part
71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by removing the Class E airspace designated as a surface area
at Chilicothe Municipal Airport, Chilicothe, MO. Airport and air
traffic control facility management have determined that this airspace
is no longer needed and will not compromise the safety and management
of IFR operations at the airport, and that airport users will receive
greater benefit from its removal.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes controlled surface area airspace at Chilicothe Municipal
Airport, Chilicothe, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Chilicothe, MO [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 7, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-26522 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 38603]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16210]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-
2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2006-23773]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 21 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 27623).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 21 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for James C. Askin, Paul J. Bannon, Ernie E. Black,
Ronnie F. Bowman, Gary O. Brady, Stephen H. Goldcamp, Steven F. Grass,
Wai F. King, Dennis E. Krone, Richard J. McKenzie, Jr., Christopher J.
Meerten, Craig W. Miller, William J. Miller, Robert J. Mohorter, James
A. Mohr, Roderick F. Peterson, Tommy L. Ray, Jr., George S. Rayson,
Donald W. Sidwell, Elmer K. Thomas and Raul R. Torres.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: June 28, 2010.
Larry W. Minor
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-16210 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 21490]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88622; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Adopt a Delta-Adjusted at Close Order Instruction

April 13, 2020.
    On February 18, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a Delta-
Adjusted at Close order instruction that a User may apply to an order
when entering it into the System for execution in an electronic or open
outcry auction. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 9, 2020.\3\ The Commission has received
no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88312 (March 3,
2020), 85 FR 13686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates June 7, 2020, as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. CBOE-2020-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08088 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6389-6391]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01933]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68724; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule 440B To Provide How the Trigger Price Will Be Calculated
if Trading Is Interrupted Because of a Systems or Technical Issue and
Is Not Restored During the Trading Day

January 24, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 10, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 440B to provide how the Trigger
Price will be calculated if trading is interrupted because of a systems
or technical issue and is not restored during the trading day. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 440B to provide how the Trigger
Price \4\ will be calculated if trading is interrupted because of a
systems or technical issue and is not restored during the trading day.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that if trading in a
covered security is interrupted because of a systems or technical issue
and is not restored during that trading day, the Exchange's
determination of the Trigger Price shall be based on the consolidated
last sale price for that security on the most recent day on which the
security traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Trigger Price is defined in Rule 440B(b). See Rule 440B(b).
Determination of Trigger Price is set forth in Rule 440(c). See Rule
440B(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently filed an interim proposed rule change for
Rule 440B(b) to provide that on November 12, 2012, the closing price
for 216 Exchange-listed securities that did not have a closing
transaction on the Exchange was the consolidated last sale price
available as of the end of regular trading hours on November 12, 2012,
and that such closing price shall be the Trigger Price for purposes of
determining whether a Short Sale Price Test has been triggered pursuant
to Rule 440B(c) on November 13, 2012.\5\ The interim rule is in effect
until the Exchange has an opportunity to amend its rules on a permanent
basis. The Exchange now proposes to establish a rule provision that
provides for how the Trigger Price is determined when a systems or
technical issue prevents the closing of the security at the end of
regular trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68220 (November 13,
2012), 77 FR 69528 (November 19, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 440B sets forth how the Exchange implements the provisions of
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (``Rule 201'') \6\ under the Act which, if
triggered, imposes a restriction on the prices at which securities may
be sold short (``Short Sale Price Test''). Among

other things, Rule 201 requires trading centers to establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent the execution or display of a short sale order of a covered
security at a price that is less than or equal to the current national
best bid if the price of a covered security decreases by 10% or more
from the covered security's closing price as determined by the listing
market for the covered security as of the end of regular trading hours
on the prior day. Accordingly, Rule 201(b)(1)(i) delegates to the
listing market how to determine the closing price for a security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that market participants rely on the Exchange's
official closing price for purposes of calculating the value of mutual
funds, exchange traded funds, and various indices, among other things.
Because securities listed on the Exchange may continue to trade on
other markets while systems or technical issues prevent trading on the
Exchange, the Exchange believes that, under these circumstances, the
closing price for purposes of determining whether a Short Sale Price
Test has been triggered pursuant to Rule 440B(b) should be the
consolidated last sale price available as of the end of regular trading
hours on that day. The Exchange believes that using the consolidated
last sale price available as of the end of regular trading hours best
approximates the market's determination of the appropriate price of
such securities in the absence of a closing transaction on the listing
market.
    Rule 440B establishes procedures for the Exchange, as a listing
market, to determine whether a Short Sale Price Test has been triggered
for a covered security. Among other things, Rule 440B(b) defines the
``Trigger Price'' as the security's closing price on the listing market
as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day. Rule
440B(c)(2) provides that if a covered security did not trade on the
Exchange on the prior trading day (due to a trading halt, trading
suspension, or otherwise), the Exchange's determination of the Trigger
Price shall be based on the last sale price on the Exchange for that
security on the most recent day on which the security traded. The
Exchange believes that Rule 440B(c)(2) does not contemplate how the
Exchange should determine the closing price in the unique circumstance
of a systems or technical failure similar to that which occurred on
November 12, 2012. In particular, the reason why the Exchange did not
trade the 216 securities was not because of a trading halt or trading
suspension, and the Exchange does not believe the ``or otherwise''
language in Rule 440B(c)(2) was designed to address the unanticipated
scenario on November 12, 2012 when due to a systems issue, the Exchange
was unable to hold a closing transaction in those securities.
    The Exchange believes that such consolidated last sale prices
should be the closing price for purposes of determining the Trigger
Price pursuant to Rule 440B(b) in the event that trading in a covered
security is interrupted on the Exchange because of a systems or
technical issue and is not restored during the trading day.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 440B to provide that
for circumstances when the Exchange does not have a closing transaction
because of systems or technical issues, but securities are otherwise
eligible to trade on other markets, the Exchange shall use the
consolidated last sale price available as of the end of regular trading
hours as the closing price for purposes of Rule 440B.\7\ This proposed
rule will replace the interim rule in regards to how the Trigger Price
is calculated in these circumstances.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If there is no trading on any market on the day of the
systems or technical issue, the consolidated last sale price
available for a security may be the Exchange's closing price from
the most recent day on which the security traded.
    \8\ See supra note 5. The interim rule provided an interpretive
position, while the proposal seeks to amend the text of the Exchange
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will promote
just and equitable principles of trade because it provides clarity of
how the Exchange, as a listing market, determines the Trigger Price for
securities that do not have a closing transaction due to a systems or
technical issue. In particular, the Exchange believes that using a
Trigger Price based on the consolidated last sale price available as of
the end of regular trading hours for purposes of determining whether a
Short Sale Price Test has been triggered promotes just and equitable
principles of trade because it provides transparency of how the Trigger
Price will be determined for securities that do not have a closing
transaction due to a systems or technical issue.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon

filing. The Exchange believes that a waiver of this period is
appropriate as the proposal is designed to provide transparency of how
the Trigger Price will be determined for Exchange listed securities
that did not have a closing transaction at the Exchange due to a
systems or technical issue. According to the Exchange, the waiver of
the operative delay will allow the participants on the Exchange to
benefit from a permanent rule to determine the Trigger Price in
situations where a systems or technical issue prevents a closing price
during regular trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby grants the 30-day operative delay
request.\15\ The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is appropriate as the proposal provides clarity of how
the Exchange, as a listing market, determines how the Trigger Price
will be calculated if trading is interrupted on the Exchange because of
a systems or technical issue and is not restored during the trading
day. The Commission also believes a waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest and, therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2013-03 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-NYSE-2013-03. 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 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available for Web site
viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet
Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2013-03 and should be submitted on or before February 20, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01933 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

August 25-27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Use of Structure Activity
Relationships of Estrogen Binding Affinity to Support Prioritization of
Pesticide Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides for Screening
and Testing

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

  9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

  9:10 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Janice Chambers, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

  9:20 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks

	Stephen Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, EPA

  9:30 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks

	Laura Bailey, Executive Secretary, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel,
Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), EPA

  9:35 A.M.	Opening Remarks, Goals and Objective of Meeting

	Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Deputy Office Director for Programs, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA

  9:40 A.M.	Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

	Gary Timm, Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division, OSCP,
EPA

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M.	Prioritizing Chemicals for Screening and Assessment:

	An Application for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (Chapter
1)

	Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Deputy Office Director for Programs, OPP, EPA

10:45 A.M.	(Q)SAR/Expert System to Estrogen Binding Affinity (Chapters
2-3)

	Patricia Schmieder, Ph.D. and Richard Kolanczyk, Mid-Continent Ecology
Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
(NHEERL)-Duluth, Office of Research and Development (ORD), EPA

12:00 P.M.  	LUNCH

  1:00 P.M.	Q)SAR/Expert System to Estrogen Binding Affinity (Chapter 4)

	Patricia Schmieder, Ph.D. and Richard Kolanczyk, Mid-Continent Ecology
Division, NHEERL-Duluth, ORD, EPA

  1:50 P.M.	Conclusions

	Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Deputy Office Director for Programs, OPP, EPA

  2:00 P.M.	PUBLIC COMMENTS

  3:00 P.M.	BREAK

  3:15 P.M.  	Charge to the Panel:  Question 1

Evaluation of the Expert System in the Context of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Validation Principles

As discussed in the Preface and Introduction of the white paper, EPA’s
development of the Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship
(QSAR)-based expert system was guided by the OECD principles for (Q)SAR
validation.  The five principles include demonstration of:

a well defined endpoint,

mechanistic interpretation of the model,

defined domain of model applicability,

an unambiguous algorithm, and

appropriate measures of goodness of fit, robustness, and predictivity.

A prototype of the expert system was the subject of an OECD convened
peer-consultation in February 2009, at which time the system was
evaluated using the (Q)SAR validation principles.  Based on input from
this peer consultation, the Agency further refined the expert system,
particularly as it related to the OECD validation principles.  The
components to Charge Question 1 address specific issues concerning the
(Q)SAR validation principles and the subject expert system in the
context of its use to determine the order in which chemicals (i.e.,
food use inert ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides) will be subject
to Tier 1 screening under EPA’s Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
(EDSP)  (i.e., for prioritization).

1) A.		Biological Endpoint

The biological endpoint that is predicted by the expert system is
relative binding affinity to the cytosolic rainbow trout estrogen
receptor (ER).  Based on preliminary studies it was anticipated that
food use inert ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides would have low
relative binding affinities.  In addition, an evaluation of the two
respective inventories indicated a wide range of structures and
associated physical-chemical properties (e.g., solubility, Kow, etc).
Consequently, assay methods used to measure binding affinity to
establish the training set were designed to detect low levels of binding
affinity (e.g., testing to solubility in binding assays and cytotoxicity
or solubility, as appropriate, in slice assays). Confirmatory binding
studies (Ki experiments) and transactivation assays were employed to
systematically verify that apparent low affinity binding levels
represented competitive displacement and translated to ER-mediated
transactivation.

Question A1. Please comment on the methods employed and their adequacy
for detecting and measuring ER binding affinity for the compounds in the
two chemical inventories of immediate interest.

Question A2. In the context chemical prioritization for Tier 1
screening, please comment on the decision to measure binding affinity up
to the maximum concentration based on the solution properties of the
chemical, rather than using ligand concentration ‘cut-off’ values of
-4 Log Molar to -3 Log Molar, which have typically been used to conclude
a compound does not bind to the ER.

Question A3. Please also comment on how any in vivo studies that are
available for compounds with low receptor binding affinity could be used
to provide a relative binding affinity ‘cut-off’ value either alone
or in combination with cut-off values based on the maximum solubility of
a ligand in the buffer solution.

1) B.	Mechanistic Interpretation

Numerous studies have established the alignment of estrogen and other
high affinity ligands within the ER binding domain and indicate that a
distance of 10.2 to 11A between the two H-bonding sites and stable
(non-flexible) ring structure is optimal for binding. These and other
studies lead to the assumption that acyclic compounds would not bind to
the ER, although a systematic analysis across a diversity of structures
was not available in the literature.  In the current study 25 acyclic
compounds across 10 classes present in the inventories were evaluated in
the training set and none were found to bind at a Relative Binding
Affinity (RBA) detection limit of 0.00001%.

Question B1. Please comment on the adequacy of this training set for
supporting the expert system’s rule that acyclic compounds do not bind
to the ER.

Based on studies by Katzenellenbogen et al. (2003 and references
therein) a working hypothesis in developing the training set was that
compounds in the inventories of interest could bind at one site; i.e.,
the A site or the B site, based on the presence of a hydrogen bond donor
or acceptor substituent.  The development of the training sets and the
resultant ER expert system use a chemical hierarchy based on different
binding mechanisms (i.e., A-B binding sites, A binding site only, B
binding site only).

Question B2. Please comment on strengths and limitations of this
mechanistic interpretation for selecting chemicals in the training sets
and for interpreting the observed binding data.

While ER binding can be an initial step in a toxicity pathway leading to
adverse reproductive outcomes (see Figure 1 in the white paper), the ER
binding data in the training set, and the associated expert system, were
not designed to predict in vivo responses.  Rather the expert system was
designed to predict relative ER binding affinity from a chemical’s
structure to support the prioritization of food use inert ingredients
and antimicrobial pesticides for in vitro and in vivo Tier 1 screening,
which is designed to ascertain if a compound has the potential to
interact with the estrogen system.

	Question B3. Please comment on the clarity of the white paper in
describing the differences in (Q)SAR development when the goal is to
predict in vitro ER receptor binding from chemical structure vs. when
the goal is to predict in vivo reproductive/developmental responses from
chemical structure.  Please indicate if additional discussion in the
white paper is needed to establish the relevance of ER binding affinity
(either measured or predicted) to interpret the potential for in vivo
outcomes.

 5:30 P.M.     ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

August 25-27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Use of Structure Activity
Relationships of Estrogen Binding Affinity to Support Prioritization of
Pesticide Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides for Screening
and Testing

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Janice Chambers, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:15 A.M.    Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

		Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Deputy Office Director for Programs, OPP, EPA

9:30 A.M.	Charge to the Panel:  Question 1 (continued)

1) C.	Model Domain

The domain of the current ER expert system includes rules to support
predictions of ER binding affinity for chemicals in the food use inert
ingredient and antimicrobial pesticide inventories.

Question. Please comment on the adequacy of the approach that was used
to select chemicals for the training sets in terms of these two
inventories.

1) D.	Algorithm

The ER expert system provides predictions for each chemical, with each
individual prediction traceable to chemical subgroups, binding mechanism
and endpoint databases.  In developing the expert system several
chemical subgroups were identified as chemicals that contain multiple
functional groups.

Question D1. Please make suggestions for improvements in presenting the
expert rules and their underlying rationale, especially with regard to
groups with multiple functional groups.

Question D2. Please also comment on the ability of the expert rules to
identify chemicals outside the model domain.

 10:15 A.M.	BREAK

 10:30 P.M.	Charge to the Panel:  Question 1 (continued)

1) E.	Goodness of Fit, Robustness, and Predictivity

Consistent with suggestions by the EDSTAC (1998), and typical processes
for (Q)SAR development, the expert system rules were established through
an iterative process of defining subgroups, gathering empirical data to
refine subgroups rules, followed by collection of additional empirical
data to cover the structural domain and/or until a consistent pattern of
structural rules and activity emerged.  The expert rules permit each
chemical to be assigned to subgroups and an associated estimated binding
affinity value, accompanied by an explanation of the basis for the
estimate as well as of how the estimate compares to measured data for
other members of the same subgroup. The 2009 OECD expert consultation
report on the expert system recognized that standard statistical methods
such as those used to assess regression model QSARs are not necessarily
applicable to expert systems whereas transparency and usefulness as
described in the white paper are more appropriate parameters for
assessing the validity of an expert system. The peer consultation report
found the current approach, with individual predictions traceable to
chemical subgroups, binding mechanism and endpoint databases, to be
appropriate although the report noted that if additional information
could be made available it would facilitate future peer-review on this
issue.

Question E1. Please comment on the adequacy of information presented in
the white paper to evaluate the scientific rationale of how a chemical
is processed through the decision logic; i.e., how a chemical is
assigned to a subgroup with an associated binding affinity value; the
mechanistic rationale for estimates of binding affinity data, including
data for related chemicals; and how it is determined that a chemical is
outside of the domain of the expert system.

Question E2. While to date the Agency is not aware of statistical
approaches that would provide the means to assess goodness-of-fit or
predictivity of expert systems such as the one described here, is the
SAP aware of any statistical approaches or data presentations that could
be amenable for such evaluations?

1) F.	Transparency and Clarity of the Expert System

In its validation principles, OECD recognized the importance of a
transparent validation process for the development of (Q)SAR models in
order to further enhance their regulatory acceptance of (Q)SAR models.

Question F1. Please provide any additional comment on how well the white
paper’s summary of the expert system conforms to the OECD validation
principles and provide suggestions, as appropriate, to enhance the
clarity or transparency of the expert system’s development and
intended use with regard to the validation principles.

The white paper and associated presentations at the SAP meeting form the
basis of the documentation of the expert system.

Question F2. Please provide any suggestions for preparing the system
documentation that will enhance clarity and understanding for users.

 12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M. 	Charge to the Panel: Question 2

Acyclic Compounds

Acyclic compounds comprise ~58% of the food use inert and antimicrobial
inventories.  As discussed in Question 1c, acyclic compounds were found
to not bind to the ER.  Generally, the absence of hydrogen bonding
groups, or inappropriate geometry can explain the failure of these
chemicals to bind to ER (e.g., see Katzenellenbogen et al., 2003).
Prior to the EPA research described in the SAP review, a diverse set of
acyclic structures had not been evaluated for ER binding affinity.

Question 2A. Please comment on the extent to which the finding with
acyclic compounds in the FI and AM inventories may be broadly applicable
to other acyclic compounds. Suggestions on an approach to empirically
and efficiently assess a hypothesis that acyclic compounds will not bind
to the ER in other chemical inventories would be welcomed.

Question 2B.  Please comment on the extent to which the finding with
acyclic compounds in the FI and AM inventories can be applied to other
nuclear steroid receptors in general. Suggestions on an approach to
empirically and efficiently assess a hypothesis that acyclic compounds
will not bind to the androgen receptor would be welcomed.

2:00 P.M.	Charge to the Panel: Question 3

Prioritization for EDSP Tier 1 Screening

OECD member countries have long recognized the potential of (Q)SAR for
initial assessments for thousands of untested chemicals and to
establish priorities for follow up actions.  The OECD "Integrated
Approaches to Testing and Assessment" framework has encourage the use of
existing knowledge including (Q)SAR to effectively assess and manage
large chemical inventories
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/52/40705314.pdf).  In its final
report, the EDSTAC (US EPA 1998a) recommended a tiered approach for
detecting chemicals with endocrine disrupting potential using a
resource-efficient manner that is similar to  OECD's Endocrine
Disruptor Testing and Assessment Framework
(http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34377_2348794_1_1_1_1,00
.html).  Like the OECD approach, the framework proposed by the EDSTAC
includes use of (Q)SARs and high through put screening assays.

Question. Based on the characteristics of the (Q)SAR-based expert system
presented in the white paper, please comment on the Agency’s view that
the expert system could be employed to support  "sorting and
prioritizing"  food use inert ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides
for EDSP Tier 1 screening

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:15 P.M.	Charge to the Panel: Question 4

Cross Species Applicability

As discussed in the white paper, when comparable assay systems are used
(e.g., comparing recombinant receptors to recombinant receptors;
comparing cytosolic receptors to cytosolic receptors; comparing assays
with similar total protein concentrations and thus chemical
availability) there is general agreement in measurements of binding
affinity across species (fish, rat, human). Thus, the type of assay used
appears to explain differences more than species origin of the
receptors.  To evaluate the applicability of the current expert system
based on a trout ER training set for predicting relative binding
affinity to human   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ERα, binding assays using
full-length recombinant human   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ERα and
transactivation assays in human T47D cells are in progress with food use
inert ingredients and antimicrobial active ingredients. Chemicals
selected for human ER testing are based on predictions from the current
expert system and designed to cover each chemical group and bracket the
Log Kow ranges within the group.  To date results show good species
concordance with  chemical groups that have members that bind trout ER
also having chemicals that bind human   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ER, although
the trend is toward fewer members of a chemical group binding to human
ER than to rainbow trout ER (e.g., a more restrictive Log Kow range for
binding within a chemical group for human ER). Therefore rainbow trout
ER appears to bind more low affinity chemicals within a group but bind
the same type of chemicals as does human ER.

Question. Given what is reported in the literature and similarities
between human and rainbow trout ER binding affinity observed thus far in
the research described in the white paper, please comment on the extent
to which use of an expert system based primarily on trout ER binding
affinity data is a reasonable effects component for prioritizing food
use inert ingredients and antimicrobial pesticides for EDSP Tier I
screening.

4:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion

5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

August 25-27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0322

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with The Use of Structure Activity
Relationships of Estrogen Binding Affinity to Support Prioritization of
Pesticide Inert Ingredients and Antimicrobial Pesticides for Screening
and Testing

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, August 27, 2009

  9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

ഀ׆Āֲ฀䲄࿿ꂄᄅ悄㟺$␸䠀$葝ｌ葞֠葠褐摧笺

Ä

Å

Æ

Ê

ë

í

ï

ö

û

ü

1

3

4

4

6

E

N

U

\

d

h

q

s

—

š

›

¡

§

º

ß

á

 á

ì

à

䠀$摧䝵£

ༀ炄㜈$␸䠀$葞ࡰ摧䝵£

ༀ㢄ᄄ预㟾$␸䠀$葞и葠ﺘ摧䝵£

䠀$葞֠摧箤

ༀࢄ㜇$␸䠀$葞܈摧箤

ഀ׆Āࡰༀࢄ㜇$␸䠀$葞܈摧箤

̀Ĥ␷㠀$⑈愀Ĥ摧⓭V̀Ĥ␷㠀$⑈愀Ĥ摧㒤
ഀ׆Āֲༀꂄᄅ悄㟺$␸䠀$葞֠葠褐摧ᕯ(
ഀ׆Āֲༀꂄᄅ悄㟺$␸䠀$葞֠葠褐摧⎤à

h

ༀ炄㜈$␸䠀$葞ࡰ摧䝵£

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧䝵£	㜀$␸䠀$摧䝵£

ᄀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葠ː摧䝵£

	㜀$␸䠀$摧⓭V

䠀$葞ࡰ摧箤	㜀$␸䠀$摧䝵£

ༀ炄㜈$␸䠀$葞ࡰ摧䝵£

ༀࢄ㜇$␸䠀$葞܈摧䝵£

ༀ炄ᄈ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ࡰ葠ﺘ摧箤

ༀ炄㜈$␸䠀$葞ࡰ摧箤

ༀࢄ㜇$␸䠀$葞܈摧箤

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧箤

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧箤

ༀꂄጅ㜀$␸䠀$葞֠摧箤

萑´葠´摧籨¾

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧㾘x

(continued as needed)

10:30 A.M.	BREAK

10:45 A.M.	Panel Discussion (continued as needed)

12:00 P.M.	ADJOURN

Note:	Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the
discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic
will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated
Federal Official for this meeting, Sharlene Matten, via telephone: (202)
564-0130; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 84625]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28184]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79339; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change Related to the Exchange's Equity Options Platform To Adopt a
Price Improvement Auction, the Bats Auction Mechanism

November 17, 2016.
    On September 16, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change for the Exchange's equity options platform (``EDGX
Options'') to adopt a price improvement auction, the Bats Auction
Mechanism. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 5, 2016.\3\ The Commission has received no
comment letters on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78988 (September 29,
2016), 81 FR 69172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is November 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act \5\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates January 3,
2017, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-28184 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P