[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1103-1106]
[FR Doc No: 2012-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66084; File No. SR-ISE-2011-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fees for Certain Complex Orders Executed on the
Exchange

January 3, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2011, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend fees for certain complex orders
executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend fees charged
by the Exchange for certain orders on two of the most actively-traded
index option products, the NASDAQ 100 Index option (``NDX'') and the
Russell 2000 Index option (``RUT'').
    For trading in NDX and RUT, for both regular and complex orders,
the Exchange currently charges $0.20 per contract for firm proprietary
orders and Customer (Professional Orders), \3\ and $0.45 per contract
for Non-ISE Market Maker \4\ orders. ISE market maker orders \5\ in
these two symbols are subject to a sliding scale, ranging from $0.01
per contract to $0.18 per contract, depending on the amount of overall
volume traded by a market maker during a month. Market makers also
currently pay a payment for order flow (PFOF) fee of $0.65 per contract
when trading against Priority Customers. Priority Customer orders are
not charged for trading in NDX and RUT. Options on NDX and RUT are
traded on the Exchange pursuant to a license agreement entered into by
the Exchange with index providers for NDX and RUT. In addition to the
fees noted above, the Exchange currently charges ISE market maker
orders, Non-ISE Market Maker orders and firm proprietary orders $0.22
per contract and $0.15 per contract for NDX and RUT, respectively, to
defray the licensing costs. Because of competitive pressures in the
industry, certain customer orders are not charged this surcharge fee.
The Exchange's current fee schedule notes that Public Customer Orders
are excluded from this surcharge fee. Historically, Public Customer
orders were synonymous with retail customer orders. The Exchange now
distinguishes retail customers from professional customers, the latter
being professional traders who are not market makers or broker/dealers
but behave the way that market makers and broker/dealers do. Orders
from these customers are identified on the Exchange as Professional
Orders. Orders from retail customers are identified on the Exchange as
Priority Customer orders. Thus, for the sake of clarity, the Exchange
proposes to replace the words ``Public'' with ``Priority'' for all the
surcharge fees that appear on the Exchange's fee schedule. Thus,
Priority Customer orders will remain exempt from this fee, while
Professional Orders will be subject to the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Professional Order'' means an order that is for
the account of a person or entity that is not a Priority Customer.
See ISR Rule 100(a)(37C).
    \4\ The term ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' means a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') registered in the same options class on another
options exchange. See Schedule of Fees, page 4.
    \5\ The term ``market makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses a per contract transaction fee to
market participants that add or remove liquidity in the Complex Order
Book (``maker/taker fees'') in symbols that are in the Penny Pilot
program. Included therein is a subset of 103 symbols that are assessed
a slightly higher taker fee (the ``Select Symbols'').\6\ Additionally,
pursuant to SEC approval which allows market makers to enter quotations
for complex order strategies in the Complex Order Book,\7\ the Exchange
recently adopted maker/taker fees and rebates for orders in the
following three symbols: XOP, XLB and EFA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Select Symbols are identified by their ticker symbol on
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65548 (October 13,
2011), 76 FR 64980 (October 19, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-39).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65958 (December 15,
2011) (SR-ISE-2011-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to extend its maker/taker fees and
rebates to complex orders in NDX and RUT. Specifically, for Customer
(Professional Orders), firm proprietary and ISE market maker orders,
ISE proposes to adopt a ``make'' fee of $0.25 per contract and a
``take'' fee of $0.70 per contract. For Non-ISE Market Maker orders,
ISE proposes to adopt a ``make'' fee of $0.25 per contract and a
``take'' fee of $0.75 per contract. For crossing complex orders in NDX
and RUT, i.e., orders executed in the Exchange's Facilitation
Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism and Price
Improvement Mechanism, and

for Qualified Contingent Cross orders, the Exchange currently charges a
fee of $0.20 per contract. The Exchange proposes to continue charging a
fee of $0.20 per contract for crossing complex orders in NDX and RUT.
The Exchange currently does not charge Priority Customers for crossing
orders executed in NDX and RUT. The Exchange proposes to continue not
charging Priority Customers for crossing orders executed in NDX and
RUT. For responses to special orders,\9\ ISE proposes to adopt a fee of
$0.70 per contract for Customer (Professional Orders), firm proprietary
and ISE market maker orders. For Non-ISE Market Maker orders, ISE
proposes to adopt a fee of $0.75 per contract for responses to special
orders in NDX and RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A response to a special order is any contra-side interest
submitted after the commencement of an auction in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block Order
Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism. This fee applies to
Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer
(Professional) interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for Priority Customer complex orders in symbols that are
in the Penny Pilot program, the Exchange currently provides a per
contract rebate when these orders trade with non-customer orders in the
Complex Order Book. The Exchange proposes to extend this rebate
incentive for NDX and RUT also. As such, the Exchange proposes to adopt
a rebate of $0.50 per contract for Priority Customer complex orders in
NDX and RUT when these orders trade with non-customer orders in the
Complex Order Book.
    The Exchange currently provides ISE market makers with a two cent
discount when trading against orders that are preferenced to them. The
Exchange proposes to extend this discount for preferenced complex
orders in NDX and RUT. Accordingly, ISE market makers who remove
liquidity in NDX and RUT from the Complex Order Book will be charged
$0.68 per contract when trading with orders that are preferenced to
them.
    With the proposed migration of NDX and RUT to the Exchange's
complex order maker/taker pricing structure, the Exchange proposes to
no longer charge a PFOF fee for complex orders in these two symbols.
The cancellation fee, however, which only applies to Priority Customer
orders, will continue to apply.
    As the Exchange is proposing to adopt a new table for this proposed
fee change, the Exchange notes that:
     Fees for orders in NDX and RUT executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation, Solicited Order, Price Improvement and Block Order
Mechanisms are for contracts that are part of the originating or contra
order.
     Complex orders in NDX and RUT executed in the Facilitation
and Solicited Order Mechanisms are charged fees only for the leg of the
trade consisting of the most contracts.
     As noted above, the PFOF fees will not be collected for
complex orders in NDX and RUT.
     As noted above, the cancellation fee, which only applies
to Priority Customer orders, will continue to apply to NDX and RUT.
     The Exchange currently has a fee cap, with certain
exclusions, applicable to transactions executed in a member's
proprietary account. The cap also applies to crossing transactions for
the account of entities affiliated with a member. The Exchange also has
a service fee applicable to all QCC and non-QCC transactions that are
eligible for the fee cap.\10\ This fee cap will continue to apply to
executions of complex orders in NDX and RUT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64270 (April 8,
2011), 76 FR 20754 (April 13, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange currently has tiered rebates to encourage
members to submit greater number [sic] of QCC orders and Solicitation
orders to the Exchange. Once a member reaches a certain volume
threshold in QCC orders and/or Solicitation orders during a month, the
Exchange provides a rebate to that member for all of its QCC and
Solicitation traded contracts for that month.\11\ These tiered rebates
will continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65087 (August 10,
2011), 76 FR 50783 (August 16, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-47); 65583
(October 18, 2011), 76 FR 65555 (October 21, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-68);
65705 (November 8, 2011), 76 FR 70789 (November 15, 2011) (SR-ISE-
2011-70); and 65898 (December 6, 2011), 76 FR 77279 (December 12,
2011) (SR-ISE-2011-78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     As noted above, the Exchange currently charges a license
surcharge fee of $0.22 per contract and $0.15 per contract for trading
in options on NDX and RUT, respectively. This license surcharge will
continue to apply to all orders except for Priority Customer orders.
    With this proposed rule change, all non-customer orders will be
assessed similar fees, thus eliminating the gap that currently exists
between market makers and non-market makers when trading complex orders
today. The proposed fees are consistent with the fees and rates of
payment for order flow commonly applied to symbols that are not part of
the Penny Pilot program. At the proposed levels, ISE market makers will
in fact see their fees lowered compared to current levels, which
include a transaction fee and a $0.65 per contract PFOF fee, while at
the same time equitably distributing the costs of attracting complex
orders. The Exchange's maker/taker fees and rebates for complex orders
in Penny Pilot symbols has proven to be an effective method of
attracting order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
extending its maker/taker fees and rebates for complex orders to NDX
and RUT, which are two of the most actively-traded index option
products, will assist the Exchange in recovering lost market share in
these two products. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change
will also serve to enhance the Exchange's competitive position and
enable it to attract additional complex order volume in these two
symbols because both NDX and RUT are high-priced index options and a
very substantial portion of the volume traded in high-priced index
options occurs in complex orders.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive, clarifying
change in two footnotes on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
Specifically, the Exchange recently adopted language in footnotes 7 and
12 on pages 19 and 20 of the Exchange's current Schedule of Fees,
respectively, related to rebates and fees for certain complex orders
executed on the Exchange.\12\ The Exchange now proposes to add the
words `Priority Customer' in front of `orders' to clarify that ISE
market makers will receive a discounted rate when they trade against
Priority Customer orders that are preferenced to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65958 (December 15,
2011) (SR-ISE-2011-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make these fee changes operative on
January 3, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the net fees paid by a
particular market participant will depend on a number of variables,
most important of which will be its propensity to add or remove
liquidity in NDX and RUT in the Complex Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge all
market

participants (except Priority Customers) trading in complex orders in
NDX and RUT a standardized `make' fee of $0.25 per contract. The
Exchange currently charges a standardized `make' fee of $0.32 per
contract for complex orders in certain symbols when these orders trade
against Priority Customer orders.\15\ The Exchange further believes it
is reasonable and equitable to charge ISE market maker, firm
proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders a `take' fee of $0.70
per contract ($0.75 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker orders) for
complex orders in NDX and RUT because the Exchange is seeking to recoup
the cost associated with paying an increased rebate of $0.50 per
contract to these market participants. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable and equitable to charge ISE market maker, firm proprietary
and Customer (Professional) orders a fee of $0.70 per contract ($0.75
per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker orders) when such members are
responding to special orders because a response to a special order is
akin to taking liquidity, thus the Exchange is proposing to adopt an
identical fee for taking liquidity in these two symbols. The Exchange
has historically maintained a differential in the fees it charges ISE
market makers from those it charges to Non-ISE Market Makers. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to treat these two
groups of market participants differently because each has different
commitments and obligations to the Exchange. ISE market makers, in
particular, have quoting obligations and pay the Exchange non-
transaction fees. Non-ISE Market Makers do not have any such
obligations or financial commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65958 (December 15,
2011) (SR-ISE-2011-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes it is reasonable and equitable for
the Exchange to charge a fee of $0.20 per contract for complex orders
in NDX and RUT executed in the Exchange's various auctions and for
Qualified Contingent Cross orders because these fees are identical to
the fees the Exchange currently charges for similar orders in the
symbols that are subject to the Exchange's maker/taker fees.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposed fees remain
competitive with fees charged by other exchanges and are therefore
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. For
example, the $0.70 per contract complex order `take' fee in NDX and RUT
proposed by the Exchange for market maker, firm proprietary and
Customer (Professional) orders remains lower than that charged by the
Boston Options Exchange (``BOX''). For a similar order, BOX charges
both a transaction fee, which ranges anywhere from $0.13 per contract
to $0.25 per contract, and a fee for adding liquidity in non-Penny
Pilot classes of $0.65 per contract, for an `all-in' rate of $0.90 or
more per contract.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See BOX Fee Schedule, Sections 4 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a rebate for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders
trade with non-customer orders in the Complex Order Book because paying
a rebate would continue to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are subject to the
rebate, which the Exchange believes ultimately will benefit all market
participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange already provides this
rebate and is now proposing to increase the rebate for NDX and RUT,
which the Exchange believes will attract greater order flow of complex
orders in these two symbols.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to ISE market makers on preferenced orders
because this will provide an incentive for market makers to quote in
the Complex Order Book.
    The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be
an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to members and their
customers. The Exchange believes that adopting maker/taker fees and
rebates for complex orders in NDX and RUT will attract additional
complex order business in these two symbols. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because
the fee structure is consistent with fee structures that exist today at
other options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they are consistent with price differentiation that exists
today at other option exchanges. The Exchange believes it remains an
attractive venue for market participants to trade complex orders as its
fees remain competitive with those charged by other exchanges for
similar trading strategies. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to another exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular
exchange to be excessive. With this proposed fee change, the Exchange
believes it remains an attractive venue for market participants to
trade complex orders.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\17\ 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2011-84 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-ISE-2011-84. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-84 and should be
submitted on or before January 30, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-99 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


2015 Ozone Transport FIP Meeting Title: Reliability  -  Good Neighbor Plan Date/Time: September 12, 2022. 10:00 AM  -  10:30 AM Agenda/Meeting Summary:	 This meeting was for Berkshire Hathaway Energy to emphasize the aspects of their comments. They discussed ozone transport in the west, their fleet transition perspective, just transition in western  communities, and non-EGU pipeline comments Participants/Affiliations: Name Affiliation Beth Murray EPA Brian Fisher EPA Dan Schramm EPA David Lifland EPA Garrett Powers EPA Jeremey Mark EPA Jennifer Mcivor Berkshire Marie Durrant Pacificorp


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69957-69958]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27699]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73621; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-095]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Provide a New Optional Functionality to Minimum
Quantity Orders

November 18, 2014.
    On September 18, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``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 amend NASDAQ Rule 4751(f)(5) to provide a new
optional functionality for Minimum Quantity Orders. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 6,
2014.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73266 (September 30,
2014), 79 FR 60207 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 these proposed rule changes should be disapproved.
The 45th day for this filing is November 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. The proposed rule change would, among other
things, provide new optional functionality for minimum quantity orders.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates January 4, 2015, as
the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27699 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46975]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-3-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Nylon
Corporation of America

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Nylon Corporation of America`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 23, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 2, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21679 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 56651-56652]
[DOCID:fr02no09-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 18, 2009, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave.,
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: James K. Kane, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512522. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On December 18, 2009, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations, and vote on a premarket approval application,
sponsored by Envoy Medical Corporation, for the Esteem Totally
Implantable Hearing System. The ESTEEM is a totally implantable hearing
device that is implanted in the middle ear to help hearing in patients
suffering from mild to severe hearing loss that is sensorineural in
origin. The Esteem System consists of three implantable components
(Sound Processor, Sensor, and Driver), two external programmers (Esteem
Programmer and Personal Programmer), an external Intraoperative System
Analyzer (ISA) and accessories. The intended use of the ESTEEM is to
alleviate hearing loss in adults by replicating the ossicular chain and
providing additional gain.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
December 8, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before November 30, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may
be

limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by December
1, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
301-796-5966 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by December 4, 2009.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 27, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-26260 Filed 10-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15757]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61716; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-008]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Co-
location Service Fees

March 16, 2010.

Correction

    In notice document 2010-6184 beginning on page 13625 in the issue
of Monday, March 22, 2010, make the following correction:
    On page 13625, the heading is corrected to read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-6184 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77593-77594]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-P-2055]

Determination That COGENTIN (Benztropine Mesylate) Injection, 1
Milligram per 1 Milliliter, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of
Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined that COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate) Injection, 1 milligram
(mg)/1 milliliter (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not
begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow
FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as
they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nisha Shah, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of
an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug
product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other
things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active
ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength,
conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed
drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved and
(2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of
all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the ``Approved
Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is
known generally as the ``Orange Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs
are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval
of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if
FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons
of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to FDA's approval of an ANDA that refers to the
listed drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an
ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
    COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate) Injection, 1 mg/1 mL, is the
subject of NDA 012015, held by Akorn Operating Company LLC, and
initially approved on December 21, 1959. COGENTIN is indicated for use
as an adjunct in the therapy of all forms of parkinsonism and for the
control of extrapyramidal disorders (except tardive dyskinesia) due to
neuroleptic drugs (e.g., phenothiazines).
    In a letter dated March 18, 2022, Akorn Operating Company LLC
notified FDA that COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate) Injection, 1 mg/1 mL,
was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Nexus Pharmaceuticals submitted a citizen petition dated May 19,
2023 (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-2055), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate) Injection,
1 mg/1 mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate) Injection, 1
mg/1 mL, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that this drug product was withdrawn for reasons
of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for
records concerning the withdrawal of COGENTIN (benztropine mesylate)
Injection, 1 mg/1 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated

relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events.
We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug
product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list COGENTIN (benztropine
mesylate) Injection, 1 mg/1 mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of
approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for
this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they
meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of
ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be
revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA
applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: November 6, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24882 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 79524-79525]
[DOCID:fr29de08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59114; File No. SR-BATS-2008-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Change
the Name of BATS Holdings, Inc.

December 17, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 11, 2008, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as one being concerned solely with
the administration of the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Its Rule 2.10, (ii) the Amended
and Restated By-Laws of the Exchange, (iii) the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of BATS Holdings, Inc., (iv) the Amended
and Restated Bylaws of BATS Holdings, Inc., and (v) the Investor Rights
Agreement of BATS Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the ``Operative
Documents'') to change the name of BATS Holdings, Inc. to BATS Global
Markets, Inc.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Operative Documents to change
the name of BATS Holdings, Inc., and references thereto, to BATS Global
Markets, Inc. In connection with the filing of the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation reflecting the name change, certain
additional changes have been made to comply with Delaware Corporate
law. In addition, the address listed for BATS Global Markets, Inc. in
the Investor Rights Agreement has been updated to reflect a new
location.
    The name change from BATS Holdings, Inc. to BATS Global Markets,
Inc. is a non-substantive change. No changes to the ownership or
structure of the Exchange or BATS Holdings, Inc. have taken place.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the

Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements
of Section 6(b).\5\ In particular, for the reasons described above, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Because it is concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange, the foregoing proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2008-013 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-BATS-2008-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BATS. 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-BATS-2008-013 and should be
submitted on or before January 20, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30788 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65740-65743]
[DOCID:fr09no06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0829, FRL-8234-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Lake
County Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Lake County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD), Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act
as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving local rules that
address particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from open burning, general
area sources, cotton gins, incinerators, and fuel burning equipment.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 8, 2007, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 11, 2006. If
we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0829, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.
[fxsp0]regulations.[fxsp0]gov. Follow the on-line instructions.    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous

access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendation To Further Improve a Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they
were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                   Table 1.--Submitted Rules for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Amended, tevised, or
       Local agency           Rule              Rule title                adopted           Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCAQMD...................  Chapter VIII Section  Agencies Authorized to     08/09/05 Amended....        03/10/06
                            1002.                 Issue Burning Permits.
LCAQMD...................  Chapter VIII Table 8  Agencies Designated to     08/09/05 Amended....        03/10/06
                                                  Issue Burning Permits.

MBUAPCD..................  403.................  Particulate Matter.......  02/16/05 Revised....        07/15/05
SJVUAPCD.................  4204................  Cotton Gins..............  02/17/05 Adopted....        07/15/05
VCAPCD...................  57..................  Incinerators.............  01/11/05 Revised....        07/15/05
VCAPCD...................  57.1................  Particulate Matter         01/11/05 Adopted....        07/15/05
                                                  Emissions form Fuel
                                                  Burning Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 2005, the submittal of March 10, 2006 was found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review. On August 18, 2005, the submittal
of July 15, 2005 was found to meet the completeness criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved a version of LCAQMD Section 1002 and Table 8 into the
SIP on May 18, 1999 (64 FR 26876). We approved a version of MBUAPCD
Rule 403 into the SIP on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170) and approved a
version of VCAPCD Rule 57 into the SIP on August 6, 2001 (66 FR 40898).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of the LCAQMD Section 1002 and Table 8 revisions
relative to the SIP are as follows:
     Section 1002: The rule adds authority for agencies
designated to issue burn permits in Table 8 to collect and retain burn
permit fees.
     Table 8 is revised to clarify which agencies are
designated to issue burn permits. The purposes of new SJVUAPCD Rule
4204 are as follows:
     4204.4.1: The rule exempts cotton ginning facilities used
for research purposes and for throughputs to 4,000 pounds of seed
cotton per day.
     4204.5.0: The rule requires the control of all emission
points in cotton ginning with 1D3D cyclones or rotary drum filters on
compliance dates ranging between 07/01/06 and 07/01/08.
     4204.5.2: The rule requires air velocity entering 1D3D
cyclones to be 2,800 to 3,600 feet per minute.
     4204.5.3: The rule requires new cyclones or replacement
parts of existing cyclones 1D3D cyclones to have the dimensional
characteristics of the enhanced 1D3D cyclone (figure 1) or the 1D3D
cyclone with expansion chamber (figure 2).
     4204.5.6: The rule provides requirements for preventing
fugitive dust emission during load-out into hoppers or trailers.
     4204.5.7: The rule provides requirements for preventing
fugitive dust emission during load-out onto a pile.
     4204.6.0: The rule provides requirements for
recordkeeping, source testing, and test methods.
    The purpose of new VCAPCD Rule 57.1 is as follows:
     57.1: This new rule acquires the section regulating fuel
burning equipment being moved from Rule 57.
    The purposes of revisions of MBUAPCD Rule 403 relative to the SIP
rule are as follows:
     4<IP_ADDRESS>: The rule deletes the exemption for agricultural
operations necessary for the growing of crops or raising of fowl or
animals.
     403: The rule is reformatted.
    The purposes of revisions to VCAPCD Rule 57 relative to the SIP
Rule 57, Combustion Contaminants-Specific, are as follows:
     57.A: This section on incinerators is retained in Rule 57,
Incinerators, except that the requirements are changed from numerical
standards limiting particulate matter emissions and requiring minimums
of temperature of combustion and contact time in the SIP rule to a new
non-numerical standard of requiring a multiple-combustion-chamber
incinerator with at least three chambers and no numerical temperature
of combustion or time of contact standard.
     57.B: This section on fuel burning equipment is removed
from Rule 57 and put into new Rule 57.1, Particulate Matter Emissions
from Fuel Burning Equipment, except that the requirement for limiting
particulate matter emissions is changed from 0.1 grains/dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 12% carbon dioxide to a new standard of 0.12
pounds/million BTU at 12% carbon dioxide.
    The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).
    SIP rules must require for major sources reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including RACT in moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas (see section 189(a)) or must require for major sources best
available control measures (BACM), including best available control
technology (BACT) in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas (see section
189(b). LCAQMD, MBUAPCD and VCAPCD regulate PM-10 attainment areas, so
need not fulfill the requirements of RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT. SJVUAPCD
regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
SJVUAPCD Rule 4204 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate the
rules include the following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that LCAQMD Section 1002 and Table 8, MBUAPCD Rule 403,
SJVUAPCD Rule 4204, and VCAPCD Rules 57 and 57.1 are consistent with
the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP
relaxations, and fulfilling the requirements of RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendation to Further Improve a Rule

    The TSD describes an additional revision to SJVUAPCD Rule 4204 that
does not affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next
time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by December 11, 2006, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on January 8, 2007. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    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.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 8, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 12, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(337)(i)(A)(3),
(c)(337)(i)(B)(2), (c)(337)(i)(D), and (c)(344)(i)(B) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (337) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 4204, adopted on February 17, 2005.
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 57, adopted on July 2, 1968 and revised on January 11,
2005 and Rule 57.1, adopted on January 11, 2005.
* * * * *
    (D) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 403, adopted on September 1, 1974 and revised on February
16, 2005.
* * * * *
    (344) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Lake County Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Chapter VIII, Section 1002 and Table 8, adopted on March 19,
1996 and amended on August 9, 2005.

[FR Doc. E6-18874 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40788-40789]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040]

SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's final decision granting renewal of recognition of SGS
North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.

DATES: The renewal of recognition becomes effective on July 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. David Johnson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page
includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for
each NRTL at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html that details
its scope of recognition.
    OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the
expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes
a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating its
continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR
1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL
headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will
schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date
of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and,
as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicits comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), initially received OSHA recognition
as an NRTL on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15509). The most recent renewal for
SGS was on August 28, 1998, for a five-year period expiring on August
28, 2003. SGS submitted a timely request for renewal, dated October 2,
2002 (see Ex. OSHA-2006-0040-0008), and retained its recognition
pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current
address of the SGS facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of
the renewal request is SGS North America, Inc., 620 Old Peachtree Road,
Suwanee, Georgia 30024.
    OSHA evaluated SGS's application for renewal and made a preliminary
determination that SGS can continue to meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. OSHA conducted an audit of SGS on
November 14-16, 2012, and found non-conformances with the requirements
of 29 CFR 1910.7. SGS addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the
applicable NRTL requirements. Accordingly, OSHA determined that it did
not need to conduct an on-site review of SGS's facilities for this
request for renewal based on its evaluation of SGS's application and
all other available information.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's renewal
request in the Federal Register on

February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10569). The Agency requested comments by March
12, 2014, but received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now
is proceeding with this final notice to grant SGS's request for renewal
of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the SGS's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040 contains all materials in the record
concerning SGS's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    Pursuant to the authority granted under 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby
gives notice of the renewal of recognition of SGS as an NRTL. OSHA NRTL
Program staff reviewed the renewal request for SGS and other pertinent
information. Based on this review of the renewal request for SGS and
other pertinent information, OSHA finds that SGS meets the requirements
of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition, subject to the
specified limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of SGS's
recognition to include the terms and conditions of SGS's scope of
recognition. The scope of recognition for SGS is available in the
Federal Register notice dated March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15509), on OSHA's
Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/sgs.html.

Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
SGS also must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
    1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. SGS must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 9, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-16433 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1670-1671]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 740, 772, and 774

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AH56

Information Security Controls: Cybersecurity Items; Delay of
Effective Date

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Interim final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2021, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
published an interim final rule that establishes new controls on
certain cybersecurity items for National Security (NS) and Anti-
terrorism (AT) reasons, along with a new License Exception, Authorized
Cybersecurity Exports (ACE), that authorizes exports of these items to
most destinations except in the circumstances described in that rule.
That rule was published with a 45-day comment period, which ended on
December 12, 2021, and a 90-day delayed effective date (January 19,
2022). This rule delays the effective date of the interim final rule by
45 days.

DATES: As of January 12, 2022, the effective date for the interim final
rule published October 21, 2021, at 86 FR 58205, is delayed to March 7,
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the Export
Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) included in this rule or License
Exception ACE, contact Aaron Amundson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In response to the interim final rule published on October 21, 2021
(86 FR 58205), which implements new controls on certain cybersecurity
items for National Security (NS) and Anti-terrorism (AT) reasons, along
with a new License Exception, Authorized Cybersecurity Exports (ACE),
BIS received twelve comments before the end of the comment period on
December 12, 2021. The submitted

comments are posted at regulations.gov under ID BIS-2020-0038. Based on
issues raised by some of the public comments, BIS may consider some
modifications for the final rule. Some of the comments described the
necessary compliance measures that industry would have to complete to
comply with the October 21, 2021 rule and, on that basis, requested
that BIS delay the rule's effective date in order to allow industry
sufficient time to update the requisite compliance procedures and for
BIS to provide additional public guidance. BIS agrees that it is
important to allow enough time for industry to implement the compliance
measures and procedures necessary to comply with the published interim
final rule, as well as for BIS to provide the public with additional
guidance. Therefore, BIS is delaying the effective date of the October
21, 2021 interim final rule by 45 days, to March 7, 2022. This action
does not extend or reopen the comment period for BIS's previous request
for comments on the interim final rule.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C.
Sections 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal
authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this
action.

Thea D. Rozman Kendler,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-00448 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P