[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40608]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-81-000]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on June 29, 2012, pursuant to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 381.302 and 385.207, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin
Electric) submitted a petition requesting the Commission to issue a
declaratory order approving: (1) Wisconsin Electric's proposed
accounting treatment of a coal contract buydown; and (2) waiver of the
Commission's fuel clause regulation to allow Wisconsin Electric to
recoup the cost of the coal contract buydown through Wisconsin
Electric's cost-based, Formula Rate Wholesale Sales Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 30, 2012

    Dated: July 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16754 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85650-85655]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28458]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76361; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Provide a Process for an Expedited Proceeding
and Adopt a Rule To Prohibit Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity

November 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on November 15, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA.
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

    FINRA is proposing to (i) adopt new Supplementary Material to Rule
5210 to address two specific types of disruptive quoting and trading
activity, as further described below and (ii) amend the FINRA Rule 9800
Series to permit FINRA to initiate an expedited proceeding to take
prompt action for violations of the new Supplementary Material.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA is proposing two rule changes \3\ regarding disruptive
trading and quoting activity. The first proposed rule change would
adopt new Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 5210 to define and
prohibit specific conduct that is deemed disruptive trading and quoting
activity. The second proposed rule change would amend the Rule 9800
Series to provide FINRA with the authority to issue, on an expedited
basis, a permanent cease and desist order against a respondent that
engages

in a frequent pattern or practice of the disruptive trading and quoting
activity in Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 5210. The proposed rule
change mirrors the framework that Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., formerly
known as BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), and The Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC (``Nasdaq'') have recently adopted, but builds off of FINRA's
existing process for temporary cease and desist orders (``TCDOs'').\4\
FINRA believes that having the authority to issue a cease and desist
order on an expedited basis to stop certain well-defined disruptive and
manipulative quoting and trading activity when the activity is
persistent would significantly enhance FINRA's ability to protect
investors and market integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that this filing constitutes a single
``proposed rule change,'' under Section 19(b) of the Act.
    \4\ On February 18, 2016, the SEC approved a proposed rule
change filed by BATS to adopt new BATS Rule 12.15, which prohibits
certain types of disruptive quoting and trading activities, and BATS
Rule 8.17, which permits BATS to conduct a new expedited suspension
proceeding when it believes BATS Rule 12.15 has been violated. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77171 (February 18, 2016), 81 FR
9017 (February 23, 2016) (``BATS Approval Order''); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77606 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR
23026 (April 19, 2016) (adopting identical rules for Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc.); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77602 (April
13, 2016), 81 FR 23046 (April 19, 2016) (adopting identical rules
for Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
77589 (April 12, 2016), 81 FR 22691 (April 18, 2016) (adopting
identical rules for Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.). On May 19, 2016,
Nasdaq filed a substantially similar proposed rule change with the
SEC for immediate effectiveness. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 77913 (May 25, 2016), 81 FR 35081 (June 1, 2016). Nasdaq has
similarly extended the rule to other exchanges. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78208 (June 30, 2016), 81 FR
44366 (July 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Disruptive Trading and Quoting Rule
    As a national securities association registered pursuant to Section
15A of the Act, FINRA is required to be organized and to have the
capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with, among other things, the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and FINRA Rules.\5\ Further, FINRA's rules are
required to be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, . . .
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.'' \6\ In fulfilling these
requirements, FINRA has developed a comprehensive regulatory program
that includes automated surveillance of a substantial portion of
trading activity.\7\ When potentially disruptive, manipulative, or
otherwise improper quoting and trading activity is identified, FINRA
staff conducts an investigation into the activity, which often includes
requesting additional information from the member or members
involved.\8\ To the extent violations of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, or FINRA Rules (or the rules of an exchange
with which FINRA has an RSA) have been identified and confirmed, FINRA
will commence the enforcement process (either on its own behalf or on
behalf of a client exchange), which might result in, among other
things, a censure, a requirement to take certain remedial actions, one
or more restrictions on future business activities, a monetary fine, or
a temporary or permanent ban from the securities industry.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(2).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \7\ FINRA conducts, on its own behalf, surveillance of its
members' trading activity, as well as surveillance for numerous
national securities exchanges pursuant to Regulatory Services
Agreements (``RSAs''). FINRA currently has RSAs with 18 different
exchanges to perform some degree of surveillance. FINRA also
combines its own data with data received from those exchanges with
which it has RSAs to conduct cross-market surveillance.
    \8\ See, e.g., Rule 8210.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(7). See generally Rule 9200 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process described above, from the initial identification of
potentially disruptive, manipulative, or improper quoting and trading
activity to a final resolution of the matter, can often take up to
several years.\10\ FINRA believes that this time period is generally
necessary and appropriate to ensure that the subject member has a fair
procedure before a sanction is imposed, particularly in complex cases.
However, as described below, FINRA believes that there are certain
clear cases of disruptive and manipulative behavior, or cases where the
potential harm to investors is so large, that FINRA should have the
authority to initiate an expedited proceeding to stop the behavior from
continuing, similar to that which currently exists under the Rule 9800
Series for issuing TCDOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BATS Approval Order, supra note 4, at 9017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, several cases have been brought and resolved by
FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') that involved
allegations of wide-spread market manipulation, much of which was
ultimately being conducted by foreign persons and entities over which
neither FINRA nor other SROs had direct jurisdiction. In each case, the
conduct involved a pattern of disruptive quoting and trading activity
indicative of manipulative layering \11\ or spoofing.\12\ The exchanges
and FINRA were able to identify the disruptive quoting and trading
activity in real-time or near real-time; however, due to the procedural
requirements in existing SRO rules, the members responsible for the
conduct or responsible for their customers' conduct were able to
continue the disruptive quoting and trading activity during the
entirety of the subsequent lengthy investigation and enforcement
process.\13\ FINRA believes that it should have the authority to
initiate an expedited proceeding to stop the behavior from continuing
if a member is engaging in or facilitating certain clear types of
disruptive quoting and trading activity and the member has received
sufficient notice with an opportunity to respond, but such activity has
not ceased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Layering'' is a form of market manipulation in which
multiple, non-bona fide limit orders are entered on one side of the
market at various price levels in order to create the appearance of
a change in the levels of supply and demand, thereby artificially
moving the price of the security. An order is then executed on the
opposite side of the market at the artificially created price, and
the non-bona fide orders are cancelled.
    \12\ ``Spoofing'' is a form of market manipulation that involves
the market manipulator placing non-bona fide orders that are
intended to trigger some type of market movement or response from
other market participants, which the market manipulator is able to
take advantage of by placing orders on the opposite side of the
market.
    \13\ For descriptions of two specific examples, see SR-BATS-
2015-101. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75693 (August
13, 2015), 80 FR 50370, 50371-72 (August 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change therefore adds Supplementary Material .03
to FINRA Rule 5210 (Publication of Transactions and Quotations) to
explicitly prohibit members from engaging in or facilitating the
disruptive quoting and trading activities set forth in the rule.\14\
The Supplementary Material would prohibit members from engaging in or
facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity as defined in the
rule, including acting in concert with other persons to effect such
activity. FINRA believes it is necessary to extend the prohibition to
situations

when persons are acting in concert to avoid a potential loophole where
disruptive quoting and trading activity is simply split between several
firms or customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ FINRA currently has authority to prohibit and take action
against manipulative trading activity, including disruptive quoting
and trading activity, pursuant to its general market manipulation
rules, including Rules 2010 and 2020. The proposed Supplementary
Material would define more specifically and prohibit certain types
of disruptive quoting and trading activity. Violations of the
Supplementary Material would also provide the basis to apply the
proposed cease and desist proceeding described below. Combined,
proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 5210 and the proposed
amendments to the Rule 9800 Series would provide FINRA with the
authority to act promptly to prevent the defined types disruptive
quoting and trading activity from continuing to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change defines two types of prohibited activities
and states that, for purposes of the rule, disruptive quoting and
trading activity would include a ``frequent pattern or practice'' of
these activities. As is the case with BATS Rule 12.15, the prohibited
activities do not include an express intent element.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BATS Rule 12.15 refers to these activities as ``Disruptive
Quoting and Trading Activity Type 1'' and ``Disruptive Quoting and
Trading Activity Type 2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trading Scenario One: A frequent pattern in which the
following facts are present: (1) A party enters multiple limit orders
on one side of the market at various price levels; (2) following the
entry of the limit orders, the level of supply and demand for the
security changes; (3) the party enters one or more orders on the
opposite side of the market that are subsequently executed; and (4)
following the execution, the party cancels the original limit orders.
     Trading Scenario Two: A frequent pattern in which the
following facts are present: (1) A party narrows the spread for a
security by placing an order inside the national best bid and offer and
(2) the party then submits an order on the opposite side of the market
that executes against another market participant that joined the new
inside market established by the party.
    Similar to Interpretation and Policy .02 to BATS Rule 12.15,
Supplementary Material .03 also makes clear that the order of the
events indicating the pattern does not change the applicability of the
rule and that these types of disruptive quoting and trading activity
can occur regardless of the venue(s) on which the activity is
conducted.
Proposed Cease and Desist Proceeding
    In addition to the new Supplementary Material describing the
prohibited trading and quoting activity, the proposed rule change
provides FINRA with authority to issue, on an expedited basis, a
permanent cease and desist order (``PCDO'') under FINRA's existing TCDO
rules for violations of Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA Rule
5210.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FINRA has existing authority to issue PCDOs. See Rule 9291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current TCDO rules, FINRA can initiate a TCDO proceeding
under the Rule 9800 Series when respondents are alleged to have
violated certain specific rules,\17\ and although BATS modeled its
expedited suspension proceeding rule on FINRA's TCDO rules, there are
some differences.\18\ Under the proposed rule change, FINRA can issue a
PCDO under which a respondent to the proceeding would be (1) Ordered to
cease and desist from the violative activity under Supplementary
Material .03 to Rule 5210 or (2) ordered to cease and desist from
providing market access to a client engaged in the violative trading
activity.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FINRA has the authority to initiate a TCDO for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;
SEA Rules 15g-1 through 15g-9 concerning penny stocks; FINRA Rule
2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) if the
alleged violation is unauthorized trading, or misuse or conversion
of customer assets, or based on violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933; FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative,
Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices); or FINRA Rule 4330 (Customer
Protection--Permissible Use of Customers' Securities) if the alleged
violation is misuse or conversion of customer assets. See FINRA Rule
9810(a).
    \18\ See Rule 9800 Series. BATS noted in its filing that its
proposed rule was based in part on FINRA Rules 9810 through 9870.
See SR-BATS-2015-101. In those instances where the BATS procedural
rule differs from FINRA's current TCDO process, FINRA believes that
continuing to follow its existing TCDO process will be more
efficient and effective than conforming to the BATS rule.
    \19\ Under the current TCDO rules, FINRA must file an underlying
complaint at the same time it issues a TCDO notice if a complaint
has not already been filed. See Rule 9810(d). A TCDO remains in
effect only until the conclusion of the underlying disciplinary
proceeding. See Rule 9840(c). Under the proposed rule change, as in
the BATS rule, the PCDO would be permanent, and there would be no
required underlying disciplinary proceeding. However, the proposed
rule change would in no way preclude FINRA from pursuing a separate
disciplinary action for the underlying conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed process for issuing a PCDO for violations of
Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 5210 closely follows the existing
TCDO procedures in the Rule 9800 Series. Specifically, like a TCDO,
under the proposed amendments to FINRA's procedural rules, the
following provisions would apply to a PCDO proceeding for alleged
violations of the new Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 5210:
     Only FINRA's Chief Executive Officer (or such other senior
officer as the CEO may designate) may initiate a PCDO proceeding under
the rule; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 9810(a). A PCDO proceeding would be initiated only
after attempts to resolve the conduct with the firm were
unsuccessful. In approving the BATS rules, the SEC noted that BATS
represented that it ``will only seek an expedited suspension when--
after multiple requests to a Member for an explanation of [a pattern
of potentially disruptive quoting and trading] activity--it
continues to see the same pattern of manipulation from the same
Member and the source of the activity is the same or has been
previously identified as a frequent source of disruptive quoting and
trading activity.'' See BATS Approval Order, supra note 4. FINRA
anticipates using the proposed PCDO authority in the proposed rule
change under the same circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The PCDO proceeding is initiated by service of a notice,
effective upon service, stating whether FINRA is requesting that the
respondent take action or refrain from certain action, and the notice
must be accompanied by a declaration of facts, a memorandum of points
and authorities, and a proposed order containing the required elements
of an order; \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 9810(a), (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A hearing is conducted by a Hearing Panel,\22\ and the
rules include provisions regarding the conduct of the hearing and
generally require that the hearing be held within 15 days of service of
the notice initiating the proceeding; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 9820.
    \23\ See Rule 9830(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Hearing Panel must issue a written decision no later
than ten days after receipt of the hearing transcript; \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 9840(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The PCDO must set forth the alleged violation and the
significant market disruption or investor harm that is likely to result
without the issuance of an order and describe in reasonable detail the
act or acts the respondent is to take or refrain from taking; \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 9840(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The PCDO is effective upon service and remains effective
and enforceable unless modified, set aside, limited, or revoked
pursuant to the rule; \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Rule 9840, 9850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any time after the respondent is served with a PCDO, a
party to the proceeding may apply to the Hearing Panel to have the
order modified, set aside, limited, or suspended, and the Hearing Panel
must generally respond to any such request in writing within ten days
after receipt of the request; \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Rule 9850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FINRA can initiate an expedited proceeding pursuant to
FINRA Rules 9556 and 9559 for violations of a PCDO; \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Rule 9860, 9556, 9559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sanctions issued under the rule constitute final and
immediately effective disciplinary sanctions thus allowing the
respondent to appeal the PCDO to the SEC; however, filing an
application for review with the SEC does not stay the effectiveness of
the PCDO unless the SEC otherwise orders; \29\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Rule 9870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The issuance of the PCDO does not alter FINRA's ability to
further investigate the matter or later sanction the member pursuant to
its standard disciplinary process for violations of

supervisory obligations or other violations of FINRA rules or the Act.
    The proposed rule change does include two notable differences
between the proposed process for a PCDO for violation of Supplementary
Material .03 to Rule 5210 and FINRA's existing TCDO process. First,
under the proposed rule change, a PCDO would be imposed if the Hearing
Panel finds: (1) By a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged
violation specified in the notice occurred and (2) that the conduct or
continuation thereof is likely to result in significant market
disruption or significant harm to investors. The standard of proof for
TCDOs is a likelihood of success on the merits, which is a lower
standard than the preponderance standard.\30\ Second, the permitted
terms of the order would differ to reflect the nature of Supplementary
Material .03 to Rule 5210 and, as discussed above, the common
circumstance where the member is not engaged directly in the activity
but is facilitating the disruptive quoting or trading activity by
providing market access to one of its clients. Thus, under the proposed
rule change a PCDO would be limited to: (1) ordering a respondent to
cease and desist from violating Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA
Rule 5210, and/or (2) ordering a respondent to cease and desist from
providing access to a client of the respondent that is causing
violations of Supplementary Material .03 to FINRA Rule 5210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Rule 9840(a)(1). In 2015, FINRA amended its TCDO
process to, among other things, change the evidentiary standard for
TCDOs to a likelihood of success on the merits. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 75629 (August 6, 2015), 80 FR 48379 (August
12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike BATS Rule 12.15, under which the respondent is suspended
unless and until it takes or refrains from taking the act or acts
described in the suspension order, the proposed rule change, like
FINRA's current TCDO process, would require a subsequent expedited
proceeding for violation of the PCDO before a respondent could be
suspended from FINRA membership. This approach is similar to FINRA's
existing TCDO authority, and FINRA believes it is preferable given the
broader impact a FINRA suspension would have on a firm's operations
versus a suspension by an individual exchange.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Rather than be limited to a full suspension, a separate
expedited proceeding for violation of a PCDO would also allow for
the imposition of a wider range of sanctions if the respondent
requests a hearing. See FINRA Rules 9556, 9559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, FINRA is proposing to adopt rules substantially
similar to the BATS rules recently approved by the SEC combined with
FINRA's existing TCDO rules. Similar to the concerns expressed by BATS
in its rule filing, FINRA is concerned that it has no expedited means
by which it can prevent disruptive quoting and trading activity from
continuing to occur after it has been identified without resorting to a
formal disciplinary proceeding which can often take years to complete.
Moreover, during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, the conduct
often continues to take place. By contrast, an expedited proceeding
like that recently approved for BATS, and similar to the FINRA TCDO
provisions already in place to prevent ongoing fraud or conversion of
customer funds, can preclude the activity in a significantly more
expeditious manner while still ensuring that respondents have adequate
procedural protections in place.
    The proposed rule change would enhance investor protection and
market integrity by allowing FINRA to issue PCDOs on an expedited basis
to stop certain disruptive and manipulative activity and prevent
ongoing fraud in an expeditious manner. FINRA anticipates that the
issuance of PCDOs under the proposed rule change would be limited to
those extreme circumstances where an expedited proceeding is the only
means by which FINRA can stop ongoing violative conduct.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date will be 30 days after the date
of the filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\32\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposal, FINRA will have a mechanism to promptly
initiate expedited proceedings in the event it believes that it has
sufficient proof that a violation of Supplementary Material .03 to Rule
5210 has occurred and is ongoing. FINRA believes the proposed rule
change would enhance investor protection and market integrity by
allowing FINRA to issue PCDOs to stop the defined types of disruptive
and manipulative activity and prevent ongoing fraud in an expeditious
manner.
    FINRA also believes that the proposal is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act because the proposal helps to strengthen
FINRA's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where
awaiting the conclusion of a full disciplinary proceeding is unsuitable
in view of the potential harm to other members and their customers if
conduct is allowed to continue. As explained above, FINRA notes that,
like BATS Rule 12.15, it has defined the prohibited disruptive quoting
and trading activity by modifying the traditional definitions of
layering and spoofing to eliminate an express intent element. FINRA
believes this modification is necessary for the protection of investors
so that ongoing disruptive quoting and trading activity does not occur
while a more formal disciplinary proceeding is conducted, which can
take several years to complete. Through this proposal, FINRA does not
intend to modify the definitions of spoofing and layering that have
generally been used by FINRA and other regulators in connection with
actions like those cited above.
    FINRA further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
15A(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national
securities association ``provide a fair procedure for the disciplining
of members and persons associated with members.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that following the existing procedures under its
TCDO rules to issue a PCDO under the proposed rule change provides a
fair procedure for disciplining members and persons associated with
members. FINRA recognizes that the proposed rule change lowers the
threshold necessary to stop activity consistent with the patterns
described above and potentially suspend, or otherwise sanction, member
firms engaging in such activity.\34\ FINRA believes that, by following
its existing TCDO procedures, these risks are mitigated by numerous
controls in place to assure that cease and desist orders are sought and
imposed only in appropriate cases. For example, FINRA could impose such
an order only if the action has been authorized by FINRA's CEO or other

senior officers designated by the CEO. The proposed rule change also
ensures the respondents have an opportunity for a hearing prior to the
imposition of a sanction and an independent Hearing Panel has made
findings that the standards for issuing the order have been met.
Moreover, a party subject to a cease and desist order may appeal to the
SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Consistent with the BATS framework approved by the SEC, the
proposed rule eliminates an express intent element from the
definition of prohibited activities, thereby lowering the burden of
proof necessary to stop these prohibited activities from express
intent to a ``frequent pattern or practice'' of such activities,
coupled with the requirement that the conduct is likely to result in
significant market disruption or significant harm to investors. See
BATS Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA also believes the proposal is consistent with
Section 15A(h)(1) of the Act,\35\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities association with respect to a disciplinary
proceeding: bring specific charges against a member or person
associated with a member, notify such member or person of and provide
an opportunity to defend against such charges, keep a record, and
provide details regarding the findings and applicable sanctions in the
event a determination to impose a disciplinary sanction is made. FINRA
believes that each of these requirements is addressed by the notice and
due process provisions included within its TCDO Rules and the
amendments proposed thereto. Importantly, as noted above, FINRA
anticipates using the authority proposed in this filing only in clear
and egregious cases when necessary to protect investors or other
members, and even in such cases, the respondent will be afforded a fair
procedure in connection with the cease and desist proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA has undertaken an
economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the
regulatory need for the proposed rulemaking and its potential economic
impacts, including the anticipated costs and benefits associated with
the proposed rule change.
Economic Impact Assessment
1. Regulatory Need
    As discussed above, FINRA has developed a comprehensive
surveillance program that allows it to identify potentially disruptive
quoting and trading activity almost in real-time. However, under the
current rules, it can often take FINRA up to several years to stop
potentially disruptive activity. FINRA believes that there are certain
clear cases of disruptive activity, or cases where the potential harm
to investors is so large, in which FINRA should be able to stop the
disruptive behavior and the associated ongoing investor harm from
continuing in an expeditious manner. The proposed rule change defines
and prohibits specific types of disruptive quoting and trading activity
and gives FINRA the authority to initiate an expedited proceeding and
issue a PCDO to take prompt action against these potentially harmful
activities.
2. Anticipated Benefits
    The proposed rule change would enhance investor protection and
market integrity by allowing FINRA to issue cease and desist orders to
stop certain disruptive and manipulative activity and prevent ongoing
fraud or conversion of customer funds in an expeditious manner. FINRA
anticipates that the issuance of cease and desist orders under the
proposed rule change would be limited to those extreme circumstances
where an expedited proceeding is the only means by which FINRA can stop
ongoing violative conduct. While the expedited proceedings would be
limited to extreme cases with clear violations, FINRA believes that the
proposed rule would allow FINRA to initiate and resolve the proceedings
sooner, in which case the potential benefits can be substantial in just
a single case where investors are being harmed.
3. Anticipated Costs
    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose
material costs on member firms as the underlying conduct is already
prohibited by existing rules. Further, FINRA anticipates that any costs
would likely be minimal relative to the substantial investor protection
benefits that may arise from just a single case where investors are
being harmed significantly.
4. Other Economic Impacts
    FINRA recognizes that the proposed rule change lowers the threshold
necessary to stop activity consistent with the patterns described above
and suspend member firms engaging in such activity.\36\ Accordingly, in
developing this proposal, FINRA considered the possibility that the
lower threshold may result in actions taken against firms for activity
that is not manipulative. FINRA believes that such risks are mitigated
by numerous controls in place to assure that cease and desist orders
are sought and imposed only in appropriate cases. For example, as
discussed above, FINRA anticipates that it would seek a cease and
desist order only if it continues to see a frequent pattern of
potentially manipulative activity from a member, even after making
multiple requests to that member for an explanation. Similarly, FINRA
could impose such an order only if the action has been authorized by
FINRA's CEO or other senior officers designated by the CEO. The
proposed rule also ensures the respondents have an opportunity for a
hearing prior to the imposition of a suspension and an independent
Hearing Panel has made findings that the standards for issuing the
order have been met. Moreover, a party subject to a cease and desist
order may appeal to the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Consistent with the BATS framework approved by the SEC, the
proposed rule eliminates an express intent element from the
definition of prohibited activities, thereby lowering the burden of
proof necessary to stop these prohibited activities from express
intent to a ``frequent pattern or practice'' of such activities. See
BATS Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, FINRA also considered the possibility that in response
to the proposed rule, firms may avoid legitimate activities that may be
appear to fall within the trading scenarios discussed above to avoid
regulatory and enforcement related costs. If such a response is large,
it might manifest itself in the provision of liquidity in the relevant
market. FINRA believes the controls discussed above, particularly those
associated with providing opportunities to the firms to explain their
trading strategy prior to any regulatory action, would largely mitigate
this risk.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \37\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-043 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-FINRA-2016-043. 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2016-043 and should be
submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-28458 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


% Residential exposure, 30 days, daily shower, 10% dissipation daily
% Getting peak chlorpyrifos concentration at 60 pg/g in blood on the first day
% 2h/day, 8h/day, or 16h/day exposures
% February 3, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;	%Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=75;	%Set BW to 75 kg
PREG=0;	% Not pregnant
DZONE = 1;	%
KDIS = 0.1;	%10% daily dissipation
TSTOP=1000;	%Simulation time in hours

% Dermal exposure
SAF= 0.5;	 	% Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.
FAD=1;     	% Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.
%DERM = 3.6;		% dose in ug/kg for 16 h/day exposure
DERM = 3.7;		% dose in ug/kg for 8 h/day exposure
%DERM = 6.2;		% dose in ug/kg for 2 h/day exposure
D3=7;  %DAYS/WEEK
%P2=16; %HRS/DAY
P2 = 8;	%hours/day
%P2=2;
S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2=30; %30 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6*1000 _cvo*334.5*1000];	%conc unit = pg/g

save simall @file='residential_firstday_02032016_8h_30day' @format=ascii


1 Azinphos Methyl: WOE Comparison of Human and Animal Studies for Single Chemical and Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessments J. Doherty, Ph. D. ( Study review and single chemical risk assessment)

A. Lowit, Ph. D. ( Cumulative risk assessment)

USEPA/ OPP/ HED April 5, 2006 2 Azinphos Methyl ( AZM)

An organophosphate ( OP) cholinesterase inhibitor.

Included in the OP cumulative risk assessment group Used as acaricide since 1953.

S( 3,4 dihydro 4 oxobenzo[ d]  1,2,3 triazin 3

ylmethyl) O,

Odimethyl phosphordithioate.

N N O N C H 2 S P O O S CH 3 CH 3 3 AZM Repeat Dose Human Study AZM Repeat Dose Human Study  Details Details   Inveresk Laboratory ( Scotland)   1999   28 daily doses of 0.25 mg/ kg ( mkd) in 8 adult males orally by capsule   Lactose   placebo  in 4 adult males.

  Objective of study   determine the no effect level for plasma ChE and RBC AChE and assess for possible reactions to treatment.

  8 prestudy baseline plasma and RBC ChE assessments.

  Daily ChE assessments 4 hours after dosing. On some days both predose and postdose assessments.

  Constant monitoring for reactions plus ECG and blood pressure and clinical chemistry. 4 Clinical Assessment Clinical Assessment ° No treatment related clinical signs noted.

° Clinical signs ( i. e. " headache" etc) were same in both control and AZM treated groups.

° " Viral infection" in both groups treated with tylenol. Not considered to compromise the study. 5 Cholinesterase Inhibition Cholinesterase Inhibition AZM did not inhibit either plasma ChE or RBC AChE based on three different comparisons:

1. against " placebo" control 2. daily postdosing against same group prestudy baseline 3. predose and 4 hour postdose data 6 Individual Plasma ChE or RBC AChE Variation From Individual Plasma ChE or RBC AChE Variation From Baseline Throughout the Study Baseline Throughout the Study Plasma ChE. Controls: 86% to 110%

AZM: 83% to 112%

RBC AChE Controls: 77% to 129%

AZM: 76% to 133%

Similar variation and no consistent decrease in activity in successive daily samplings to support a case for inhibition in any individual.

Therefore study is a   NOEL only study . 7 NAS Recommendation 7 NAS Recommendation 7 4.*

4.*

* Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes * Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes

Scientific and Ethical Issues.

Scientific and Ethical Issues. NAS 2004.

NAS 2004.

  EPA should reject data from   NOEL only  studies for risk assessment.

  Such studies provide no assurance that they were adequate to detect the effect of interest.

However, the Inversek laboratory demonstrated their ability to detect plasma ChE and RBC AChE inhibition in studies with human volunteers aldicarb  carbamate ( 1992)

methomyl  carbamate ( 1998)

oxamyl  carbamate ( 1999)

oxydemeton   OP ( 1999) 8 Repeated Dose study Repeated Dose study  Considerations Considerations ° Males only but females not consistently more sensitive than males in animal studies.

° Limited number of subjects ( 8) but studies with other chemicals at this lab demonstrate inhibition for a sample this size. Intraspecies uncertainty factor accounts for persons of increased sensitivity to OP inhibition.

° Animal data indicate steady state by week 4. 9 Repeated Dosing Study Repeated Dosing Study  Conclusions Conclusions ° Study is technically scientifically acceptable.

° The NOAEL of 0.25 mkd from human study is selected as the endpoint for short ( 1 30 days) and intermediate ( 1 6 months) term occupational exposure risk assessments.

° Data from animal studies support selection of the human study. Animal NOAELs and LOAELs are ~ 0.5 to 1 mg/ kg/ day.

° The 10 X interspecies uncertainty factor can be dropped. 10 Sample Impact of Removing the 10 X Sample Impact of Removing the 10 X Interspecies Uncertainty factor for Dermal Interspecies Uncertainty factor for Dermal Single Chemical Exposure Single Chemical Exposure > 10 Acceptable 60 0.01 mkd 0.60 mkd 0.25 mkd Human Oral Study > 100 Not Acceptable 36 0.01 mkd 0.36 mkd 0.149 Mkd Dog Oral Study Acceptable MOE Calculated MOE Hypothetical Exposure Adjusted for 42% Absorption NOAEL Source 11 OP Cumulative Risk Assessment OP Cumulative Risk Assessment ° Female rat brain ChE data for steady state ( 21 to 28 days and longer) provide the relative potency factors ( RPF) for AZM in the Revised OP cumulative risk assessment ( 2002).

  Supported by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ° Human data may be considered for the inter species factor 12 OP Cumulative Risk Assessment OP Cumulative Risk Assessment ° 28 day AZM human study does not show any ChE inhibition   Can not evaluate whether or not steady state was reached ° Bayer CropScience provided additional data to EPA   Concentration of key metabolite in urine of human subjects that indicates steady state for metabolite at approximately 4 5 days of exposure   Oral exposure study in rats where whole blood ChE inhibition was measured at durations ranging from 3 days up to 9 weeks of exposure   Steady state reached in whole blood ChE inhibition by 14 days. 13 OP Cumulative Risk Assessment OP Cumulative Risk Assessment ° Additional uncertainties   28 day AZM human study does not show any inhibition ° No data to compare relative sensitivity between humans and rats   Extrapolating information across compartments ( RBC to brain)

  Extrapolating information across sexes ( male subjects to female rat) 14 OP Cumulative Risk Assessment OP Cumulative Risk Assessment ° Only a NOAEL dose ° Where is this dose on the human doseresponse curve?

° Human to rat comparison is unknown. NOAEL Response (%) mg/ kg/ day X X X X X BMD10 The inter species factor for AZM in the OP CRA:

10X 15 Charge ( Scientific) to the HSRB Charge ( Scientific) to the HSRB ° The Agency's WOE document and DER for AZM describe the study design and results of the AZM repeat dose, oral, human toxicity study. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions regarding the usefulness of the human study in the worker risk assessment and in the cumulative risk assessment for the OPs.

For AZM,

  Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports the conclusions for worker risk assessment cumulative risk assessment 16 ° Backpocket slides for AZM 17 Inveresk Inveresk' s procedures do detect plasma ChE s procedures do detect plasma ChE and RBC AChE inhibition in humans.

and RBC AChE inhibition in humans.

* statistically significant.

* statistically significant. 11326 ± 895 ( 1%)

7120 ± 1268 ( 36%)*

7605 ± 1043 ( 29%)*

8499 ± 1072 ( 23%)*

11409 ± 478 11174 ± 1014 10686 ± 1644 11054 ± 641 RBC AChE Azinphos methyl  99 Methomyl  98 Oxamyl   99 Oxydemeton  99 5560 ± 888 (+ 5%)

4459 ± 388 ( 21%)*

2758 ± 739 ( 43%)*

3463 ± 715 ( 24%)*

5307 ± 1048 5665 ± 534 4871 ± 777 4542 ± 900 Plasma ChE Azinphos methyl  99 Methomyl  98 Oxamyl  99 Oxydemeton  99 Postdosing mean IU/ mL Predosing mean IU/ mL Study year


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23521]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9525]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, April
18, 2012 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:

    The Commission will consider whether to adopt joint rules with
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission relating to the definitions
of ``Swap Dealer,'' ``Security-Based Swap Dealer,'' ``Major Swap
Participant,'' ``Major Security-Based Swap Participant,'' and
``Eligible Contract Participant.''

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9525 Filed 4-17-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 52871-52872]
[DOCID:fr17se07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-95-000]

Black Oak Energy, LLC, Complainant v. New York Independent System
Operator, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

September 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 7, 2007, Black Oak Energy, LLC (Black
Oak), filed a formal complaint against New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (NYISO) pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2000), and Rule 206 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2007),
alleging that the NYISO failed to properly administer its energy
markets on at least three occasions in 2005, which resulted in
substantial financial losses to Black Oak.
    Black Oak certifies that copies of the complainant were served on
the contacts for NYISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all
interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be
served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 27, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18213 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64182-64183]
[DOCID:fr01no06-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0564, FRL-8236-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Revisions to the Utah Administrative Code; Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 7, 2006. These
changes to the Utah Administrative Code revise

some minor technical requirements of Utah's continuous emission
monitoring rules and correct several grammatical errors. The intended
effect of this action is to make federally enforceable those provisions
that EPA is proposing to approve. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 1, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2006-0564, by one of the following methods:
--http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
--E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
--Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
--Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
--Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instruction on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kimes, Air and Radiation
Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and
Regulations Section of this Federal Register.

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

    Dated: September 27, 2006.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E6-18379 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P