[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 59 (Thursday, March 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17152-17155]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06297]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88435; File No. SR-MRX-2020-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Complex
Orders

March 20, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 9, 2020, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, ``Types of
Orders,'' and Options 3, Section 14, ``Complex Orders'' to permit the
Exchange to determine the availability of order types and time-in-force
provisions and to add other existing order types to the list of single-
leg and Complex Order types.
    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7, ``Types of
Orders,'' and Options 3, Section 14, ``Complex Orders'' to: (1) Provide
that the Exchange may determine which order types and times-in-force
provisions are available on a class or system basis; and (2) to add
other existing order types to the list of single-leg and Complex Order
types.
    The Exchange proposes to add a sentence to Options 3, Section 14,
Complex Orders, which states, ``The Exchange may determine to make
certain order types and/or times-in-force available on a class or
System basis.'' This sentence exists today within Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``ISE'') Options 3, Section 7, ``Types of Orders.'' \4\ This proposed
change is based on the rules of ISE Options 3, Section 7 and the rules
of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''),\5\ Rule 21.1, Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'') Rule 21.1(d),\6\ Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'') Rule 5.6(a) \7\ and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') Rule
6.10(a).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88294 (February 26,
2020), 85 FR 12629 (March 3, 2020) (SR-ISE-2020-07).
    \5\ BZX Options Rule 21.1(d), Definitions, provides ``The term
`Order Type' shall mean the unique processing prescribed for
designated orders, subject to the restrictions set forth in
paragraph (l) below with respect to orders and bulk messages
submitted through bulk ports, that are eligible for entry into the
System. Unless otherwise specified in the Rules or the context
indicates otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following
Order Types are available on a class or system basis.'' BZX Options
Rule 21.1(f), Definitions, provides ``The term `Time in Force' shall
mean the period of time that the System will hold an order, subject
to the restrictions set forth in paragraph (l) below with respect to
bulk messages submitted through bulk ports, for potential execution.
Unless otherwise specified in the Rules or the context indicates
otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following Times-in-
Force are available on a class or system basis.''
    \6\ EDGX Options Rule 21.1(d), Definitions, provides, ``The term
`Order Type' shall mean the unique processing prescribed for
designated orders, subject to the restrictions set forth in
paragraph (j) below with respect to orders and bulk messages
submitted through bulk ports, that are eligible for entry into the
System. Unless otherwise specified in the Rules or the context
indicates otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following
Order Types are available on a class, system, or trading session
basis. Rule 21.20 sets forth the Order Types the Exchange may make
available for complex orders.'' EDGX Options Rule 21.1(f),
Definitions, provides, ``The term `Time in Force' means the period
of time that the System will hold an order, subject to the
restrictions set forth in paragraph (j) below with respect to bulk
messages submitted through bulk ports, for potential execution.
Unless otherwise specified in the Rules or the context indicates
otherwise, the Exchange determines which of the following Times-in-
Force are available on a class, system, or trading session basis.
Rule 21.20 sets forth the Times-in-Force the Exchange may make
available for complex orders.''
    \7\ Cboe Rule 5.6, Order Types, Order Instructions, and Times-
in-Force at subsection (a), Availability, provides, ``Unless
otherwise specified in the Rules or the context indicates otherwise,
the Exchange determines which of the following order types, Order
Instructions, and Times-in-Force are available on a class, system,
or trading session basis.''
    \8\ C2 Rule 6.10, Availability of Orders, at subsection (a)
provides, ``Availability. Unless otherwise specified in the Rules or
the context indicates otherwise, the Exchange determines which of
the following order types, Order Instructions, and Times-in-Force
are available on a class, system, or trading session basis. Rule
6.13 sets forth the order types, Order Instructions, and Times-in-
Force the Exchange may make available for complex orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this rule change is to provide the Exchange with
appropriate flexibility to address different trading characteristics,
market models, and the investor base of each class, as well as to
handle any System issues that may arise and require the Exchange to
temporarily not accept certain order types. This rule is consistent
with BZX Options Rule 21.1(d) and (f), EDGX Options Rules 21.1(d) and
(f), Cboe Rule 5.6(a) and C2 Rule 6.10(a), each of which provides these
exchanges with substantially the same flexibility. This rule text is
also consistent with ISE Rules at Options 3, Section 7.
    This rule change will not permit the Exchange to discriminate among
market

participants when determining which order types and times-in-force
provisions are available on a class or system basis. The Exchange's
proposal allows the Exchange to make certain order types and time-in-
force, respectively, available on a class or System basis uniformly for
all market participants. For example, if the Exchange determined to
make a certain order type or time-in-force unavailable, that order type
or time-in-force would not be available for any market participant.
    The Exchange would issue an Options Trader Alert to provide
notification to Participants that a change is being made to the
availability or unavailability of a certain order type or time-in-
force. The Exchange notes that in the event of System disruption, the
Exchange would notify Participants of the unavailability of any order
type and would also provide notification when that order type was
available once the disruption was resolved.
    The Exchange also proposes to add to Options 3, Section 7 at
proposed (v)-(y) and Options 3, Section 14(b) at proposed (16), (17)
and (18), references to various existing order types that may be
entered into various auction mechanisms on MRX. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to add a reference to both single-leg and Complex
Orders entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism, Facilitation
Mechanism and Solicited Order Mechanism. These order types exist today
within the MRX Rules, however, unlike other order types, they are not
mentioned within Options 3, Sections 7 or 14, which list the single-leg
and Complex Orders, respectively, available for trading on MRX.
Further, the Exchange also proposes to add the Block Order type to
Options 3, Section 7 to complete the list of available order types that
may be entered into an auction mechanism. The Exchange proposes to add
the following rule text into Options 3, Section 7:

    (v) Block Order. A Block Order is an order entered into the
Block Order Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section 11(a).
    (w) Facilitation Order. A Facilitation Order is an order entered
into the Facilitation Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section
11(b).
    (x) SOM Order. A SOM Order is an order entered into the
Solicited Order Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section 11(d).
    (y) A PIM Order. A PIM Order is an order entered into the Price
Improvement Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section 13(a).

    The Exchange proposes to add the following rule text into Options
3, Section 14:

    (16) Complex Facilitation Order. A Complex Facilitation Order is
an order entered into the Complex Facilitation Mechanism as
described in Options 3, Section 11(c).
    (17) Complex SOM Order. A Complex SOM Order is an order entered
into the Complex Solicited Order Mechanism as described in Options
3, Section 11(e).
    (18) Complex PIM Order. A Complex PIM Order is an order entered
into the Complex Price Improvement Mechanism as described in Options
3, Section 13(e).

    The Exchange believes the addition of this rule text will make
clear that these order types are available.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to 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. The proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange with the flexibility to determine the availability
of order types and times-in-force on a class and System basis. This
flexibility would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system by allowing the
Exchange to address the specific characteristics of different classes
and different market conditions. The Exchange believes that this
proposal serves to protect investors by ensuring that the appropriate
order types and times-in-force are tailored to the different class
characteristics and by mitigating risks associated with changing market
conditions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ The Exchange may also determine to temporarily not offer an
order type or a time-in-force based on a System issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would issue a notification to Participants to provide
them notice that a change is being made to the availability or
unavailability of a certain order type or time-in-force before
implementing the change. In the event of a System issue, the Exchange
believes that it is consistent with the Act to temporarily not offer a
certain order type to ensure the proper executions of transactions
within the System thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange anticipates that exercising its ability to temporarily not
offer order types would be infrequent.
    This provision was added to all 6 Nasdaq affiliated markets for the
simple markets \12\ and therefore will ensure consistency between the
Exchange rules and that of its affiliates and would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and promote just
and equitable principles of trade, as well as foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities. The proposed rule change provides the Exchange with
substantially the same flexibility currently permitted on BZX Options,
EDGX Options, Cboe and C2 as well as ISE.\13\ The Exchange believes
that this consistency promotes market participants' understanding of
the rules across the multiple Nasdaq affiliated exchanges and promotes
a fair and orderly national options market system. This proposal does
not present any novel or unique issues because other exchanges have
substantially similar rules.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Nasdaq Phlx LLC, The Nasdaq Options Market, LLC, Nasdaq
BX, Inc., ISE, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and MRX Rules at Options 3, Section
7.
    \13\ See notes 4-8 above.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will not discriminate among market participants when
determining which order types and times-in-force provisions are
available on a class or system basis. The Exchange's proposal allows
the Exchange to make certain order types and time-in-force,
respectively, available on a class or System basis uniformly for all
market participants. For example, if the Exchange determined to make a
certain order type or time-in-force unavailable, that order type or
time-in-force would not be available for any market participant.
    The proposal to add a reference to all existing order types that
may be entered into auctions into Options 3, Sections 7 and 14 is
consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes the addition of the
Block Order type, Facilitation Order type, SOM Order type and PIM Order
types into Options 3, Section 7 and the addition of the Complex
Facilitation Order type, Complex SOM Order type and Complex PIM Order
type into Options 3, Section 14 will make clear to market participants
the various types of single-leg order and Complex Orders that may be
transacted on MRX. The descriptions of these order types merely point
at the existing mechanisms.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market
competition, as the proposed rule change will apply in the same manner
to all order types and/or times-in-force, as the Exchange determines,
for all Participants. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on inter-market competition because the
proposed change provides the Exchange with substantially the same
flexibility as the rules of other exchanges.\15\ Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will allow it to make
determinations regarding the availability of orders that will enable it
to remain competitive as markets and market conditions evolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange's proposal will uniformly make certain
order types and time-in-force, respectively, available on a class or
System basis for market participants.
    The proposal to add the Block Order type, Facilitation Order type,
SOM Order type and PIM Order types into Options 3, Section 7 and the
Complex Facilitation type, Complex SOM Order type and Complex PIM Order
type into Options 3, Section 14b does not impose an undue burden on
competition. The addition of these order types would complete the list
of single-leg and Complex Order types, which are available to all
market participants, and are merely being referenced within the order
type rules for greater transparency.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would provide the Exchange with the
flexibility to determine the availability of order types and times-in-
force on a class and System basis, allowing the Exchange to address the
specific characteristics of different classes and different market
conditions. According to the Exchange, this would ensure that the
appropriate order types and times-in-force are tailored to the
different class characteristics and mitigate risks associated with
changing market conditions. The Exchange also believes that referencing
all single-leg and Complex Order types makes clear which order types
are available to all market participants. Moreover, the Exchange
represents that the proposed rule change will apply in the same manner
to all order types and/or times-in-force, as the Exchange determines,
for all Participants, and provides the Exchange with substantially the
same flexibility as the rules of other exchanges. Lastly, the Exchange
argues that waiver of the 30-day operative delay will permit the
Exchange to immediately use this ability to make certain order types
available and unavailable, as well as enable the Exchange to remain
competitive as markets and market conditions evolve. For these reasons,
the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change 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-MRX-2020-06 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-MRX-2020-06. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official

business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-
2020-06, and should be submitted on or before April 16, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06297 Filed 3-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35766-35767]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0406]

Waterway Suitability Assessment for Construction and Operation of
Liquefied Gas Terminals; Vidor, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Enterprise Terminalling LLC has submitted a Letter of Intent
and Preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment to the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, TX regarding the company's plans to
construct, own and operate a waterfront facility handling Liquefied
Hazardous Gas (LHG) at its Vidor, Texas facility. The Coast Guard is
notifying the public of this action to solicit public comments on the
proposed increase in LHG handling and associated marine traffic on the
Sabine-Neches Waterway.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before July
24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
     Online--http://www.regulations.gov following Web site
instructions.
     Fax--202-493-2251.
     Mail or hand deliver--Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hours
for hand delivery are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LTJG Akaninyene Inyang, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-
719-5067, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, toll free
1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) in
response to this notice.
    We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action
based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number
USCG-2014-0406 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that
we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but
please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket
without change and that any personal information you include can be
searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008).
    Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x
11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management
Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at
the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under
ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Discussion

    Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator planning new
construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an
existing facility handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or Liquefied
Hazardous Gas (LHG), where the construction, expansion, or modification
would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG
marine traffic on the waterway associated with the facility, must
submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the COTP of the zone in which the
facility is located. Under 33 CFR 127.007(e), an owner or operator
planning such an expansion must also file or update a Waterway
Suitability Assessment (WSA) that addresses the proposed increase in
LNG or LHG marine traffic in the associated waterway. Enterprise
Terminalling LLC located in Vidor, Texas submitted an LOI and WSA on
February 27, 2014 regarding the company's proposed construction and
operation of LHG capabilities at its Vidor, Texas facility.
    Under 33 CR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a
Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway
for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional
authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR
127.009 that related to the physical nature of the affected waterway
and issues of safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine
traffic on the affected waterway.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the
proposed increase in LHG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
The Coast Guard believes that input from the public may be useful to
the COTP with respect to development of the LOR. Additionally, the
Coast Guard intends to task the Area Maritime Security Committee, Port
Arthur, Texas and the Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council
(SETWAC) with forming a subcommittee comprised of affected port users
and stakeholders. The goal of these subcommittees will be to gather
information to help the COTP assess the suitability of the associated
waterway for increased LHG marine traffic as it relates to navigational
safety and security.
    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, ``Guidance Related to
Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.'' NVIC 01-2011
provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build
and operate LNG facilities. While NVIC 01-2011 is specific to LNG, it
provides useful process information and guidance for owners and
operators seeking approval to build and operate LHG facilities as well.
The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and
guidance in evaluating Enterprise Terminalling LLC WSA. A copy of NVIC
01-2011 is available on

the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225,
Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR
127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.

    Dated: May 21, 2014.
G.J. Paitl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2014-14634 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42597-42600]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17500]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75432; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Adopting a
Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic
Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY
and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY

July 13, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 8, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a

proposed rule change adopting a principles-based approach to prohibit
the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-
Specialists by deleting NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of NYSE
MKT Rule 927.5NY. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 14, 2015.\4\ The Commission received one
comment letter regarding the proposed rule change.\5\ On May 20, 2015,
the Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change to July 13, 2015.\6\ On June 18, 2015, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\7\ This order approves the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74677 (April 8,
2015), 80 FR 20049 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter from Peter D. Selman, Managing Director, Goldman
Sachs & Co., dated May 5, 2015 (``Goldman Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75004 (May 20,
2015), 80 FR 30301 (May 27, 2015).
    \7\ In Amendment No. 1 the Exchange clarifies that it is not
proposing to change what is considered to be material, non-public
information and, thus does not expect there to be any changes to the
types of information that an affiliated brokerage business of a
Specialist or e-Specialist could share with such Specialist or e-
Specialist. In that regard, the Exchange explains that it no longer
offers Reserve Orders, and the proposed rule change would not permit
the affiliates of a Specialist or e-Specialist to have access to any
non-public order or quote information of the Specialist of e-
Specialist. The Exchange also explains that it does not believe that
there will be any material change to member information barriers as
a result of removal of the Exchange pre-approval requirement. In
fact, the Exchange anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval
requirement should facilitate implementation of changes to member
information barriers as necessary to protect against the misuse of
material, non-public information. The Exchange also suggests that
the pre-approval requirement is unnecessary because Specialists no
longer have agency responsibilities to the book, or time and place
information advantages because of their market role. Finally, the
Exchange argues that NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f) is a principles-based
information barrier rule that is redundant of the requirements
applicable to all members under NYSE MKT Rule 3(j). Amendment No. 1
is not subject to notice and comment because it is a technical
amendment that does not alter the substance of the proposed rule
change or raise any novel regulatory issues. Amendment No. 1 has
been placed in the public comment file for SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23 at
http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2015-23/nysemkt201523.shtml
(see letter from Martha Redding, Senior Counsel, Assistant
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), to Secretary,
Commission, dated June 30, 2015) and also is available at the
Exchange's Web site at https://www.nyse.com/regulation/rule-filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY, which sets
forth prescriptive requirements for Specialists to have information
barriers, and NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f), which sets forth a principles-
based, information barrier requirement for e-Specialists. NYSE MKT Rule
3(j), which requires that every Exchange member establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such member
or associated persons, would remain in effect and would continue to
apply to both Specialists and e-Specialists.
    Under NYSE MKT Rule 3(j), the misuse of material, non-public
information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any
related securities or related options or other derivative securities,
while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that
issuer;
    (b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative
securities, while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities;
or
    (c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public
information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or
an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities
for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material,
non-public information.

Pursuant to NYSE MKT Rule 3(j), Specialists and e-Specialists are
obligated to ensure that their policies and procedures reflect the
current state of their business and are reasonably designed to protect
against the misuse of material, non-public information, applicable
federal securities law and regulations, and Exchange rules. The
Exchange believes that such a principles-based approach should provide
Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders with greater flexibility to
develop and adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to
reflect their business model, business activities, or the securities
market.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that under this proposed rule change an ATP
Holder could structure its options Specialists, e-Specialists, or
Market Makers, as applicable, with the firm's equities and customer-
facing businesses; provided, that any such structuring be done in a
manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material,
non-public information.\9\ For example, the Exchange explains that
pursuant to NYSE MKT Rule 3(j), a Specialist could be in the same
independent trading unit, as defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation
SHO,\10\ as an equities market maker and other trading desks within the
firm, including options trading desks, to facilitate the sharing of
post-trade information for risk management purposes across related
securities.\11\ Further, consistent with NYSE MKT Rule 3(j) and Section
15(g) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange notes that a firm with reasonably
designed policies and procedures, including information barriers as
applicable, to protect against the misuse of material non-public
information, and specifically customer information, could share options
position and related hedging position information (e.g., equities,
futures, and foreign currency) within a firm to better manage risk on a
firm-wide basis.\13\ The Exchange also notes that if Specialists or e-
Specialists are integrated with other market making operations, they
would be subject to existing Exchange rules that prohibit ATP Holders
from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by
improperly capitalizing on a member organization's access to the
receipt of material, non-public information.\14\ Nonetheless, the
Exchange also notes that while the proposed rule change would no longer
specifically require information barriers, an ATP Holder's business
model or business activities may dictate that an information barrier or
a functional separation be part of the policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities
law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at 20051.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.200(f).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20051.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20051.
    \14\ See id. at 20051-52.
    \15\ See id. at 20052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deleting NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY will remove the requirement for
specified, prescriptive information barriers as well as the pre-
approval of any information barriers used by Specialists. Deleting NYSE
MKT Rule 927.5NY(f) will remove the explicit information barrier
requirement for e-Specialists. However, the Exchange notes, as is the
case today with Market Makers, that information barriers of new
entrants, including new Specialists, would be subject to review as part
of a new firm application.\16\ Moreover, the policies and procedures of
Specialists

and e-Specialists, including those relating to information barriers,
would be subject to review by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA''), on behalf of the Exchange, pursuant to a
Regulatory Services Agreement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 20050-51, n. 7.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also represents that Specialists and e-Specialists do
not have different or greater access to nonpublic information than
other market participants on the Exchange, and differ from other types
of Exchange Market Makers only because of heightened obligations and
allocation guarantees.\18\ Specifically, the Exchange notes that
Specialists and e-Specialists, like other types of Exchange Market
Makers, do not have any agency responsibilities for orders in the
Consolidated Book. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to apply a consistent, principles-based, regulatory
framework related to the protection against the misuse of material non-
public information for Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers
under NYSE MKT Rule 3(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rules 927NY(c) and 927.5NY; see also Notice, supra note
4, 80 FR at 20050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make a conforming amendment to remove
references to NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY from NYSE MKT Rule 927.6NY.

III. Summary of Comment Received

    The Commission received one comment letter in support of the
proposal.\19\ The commenter stated that Exchange Specialists no longer
have informational advantages compared to other Exchange market
participants, and thus the specific and rigid requirements applied to
Specialists under NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY and NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f)
are no longer meaningful.\20\ In addition, the commenter posited that
the proposal would promote effective risk management by enabling firms
with multiple options trading desks to share proprietary options
positions and related hedging position information.\21\ The commenter
explained that many firms seek to centralize trading operations in
order to eliminate redundancies, develop more resilient system
architecture, and thereby reduce position risk.\22\ The commenter also
opined that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Commission's efforts to require firms to more effectively limit
exposure resulting from trading market risk.\23\ Further, the commenter
suggested that the Exchange's proposed approach to preventing the
misuse of material non-public information be adopted by other option
exchanges such that the benefits of the proposal could be fully
realized.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Goldman Letter, supra note 5.
    \20\ Id. at 1.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id. at 2.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\25\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \26\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY, which sets
forth prescriptive requirements for Specialists to have information
barriers, and NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f), which sets forth a principles-
based, information barrier requirement for e-Specialists. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it continues to require firms to maintain policies and
procedures, consistent with NYSE MKT Rule 3(j) and Section 15(g) of the
Act,\27\ that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of
material, non-public information, while allowing firms greater
flexibility in structuring their business and compliance operations.
Further, as noted by the Exchange in the Notice, if Specialists or e-
Specialists are integrated with other market making operations, they
would be subject to existing Exchange rules that prohibit ATP Holders
from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by
improperly capitalizing on a member organization's access to the
receipt of material, non-public information.\28\ For example, NYSE MKT
Rule 320 requires members to establish, maintain, enforce, and keep
current a system of compliance and supervisory controls, reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and
Exchange rules, and NYSE MKT Rule 995NY(c) prevents an ATP Holder or
person associated with an ATP Holder, who has knowledge of an
originating order, a solicited order, or a facilitation order, to
enter, based on such knowledge, an order to buy or sell an option on
the underlying securities of any option that is the subject of the
order, an order to buy or sell the security underlying any option that
is the subject of the order, or any order to buy or sell any related
instrument unless certain disclosure or timing requirements are
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g). See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20051-
52.
    \28\ See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20051-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that
Specialists and e-Specialists do not have informational advantages
compared to other Exchange market participants.\29\ The Commission
additionally notes that the Exchange has specified that it no longer
offers Reserve Orders, and, further specified that in no event would
this proposed rule change permit the affiliates of a Specialist or e-
Specialist to have access to any non-public quote or order information
of the Specialist or of the e-Specialist.\30\ Accordingly, based on the
Exchange's representations that (1) Specialists and e-Specialists do
not have informational advantages compared to other Exchange market
participants, (2) Specialists and e-Specialists are not be permitted to
share any hidden, non-public quote or order interest with an affiliate,
and (3) ATP Holders are prohibited from disadvantaging their customers
or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a member
organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public
information, the Commission believes that it is appropriate for the
Exchange to adopt a principles-based regulatory approach.\31\
Nonetheless, the

Commission notes that, while information barriers are not specifically
required under this proposed rule change, a firm's business model or
business activities may dictate that an information barrier or a
functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and
procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The
Commission notes that NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and
BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (``BATS''), cash equity markets that trade
electronically, have both adopted a principles-based approach to
protecting against the misuse of material non-public information.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2, 2009), 76
FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (``Arca Approval
Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar. 2, 2010) (SR-BATS-
2010-003) (``BATS Approval Order''). Similarly, NYSE and NYSE MKT,
except for prescribed rules relating to floor-based designated
market makers that have access to specified non-public trading
information, also adopted principles-based approaches to prevent the
misuse of material non-public information for cash equity markets.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR
39019 (July 9, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-12) (``NYSE Approval Order'');
72535 (July 3, 2014) 79 FR 39024 (July 9, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-22)
(``NYSE MKT Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the policies and procedures
required by NYSE MKT Rule 3(j) are subject to oversight by the Exchange
and review by FINRA,\32\ and the Commission emphasizes that member
organizations operating a Specialist, e-Specialist or Market Maker
should be proactive in assuring that its policies and procedures
reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law
and regulations and with applicable Exchange rules.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice, supra note 4, 80 FR at 20050-51, n. 7.
    \33\ The Commission notes that such policies and procedures may
include the programming and operation of a member organization's
trading algorithms to protect against the misuse of material non-
public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-23), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17500 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 57550-57551]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9002-011]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application for
Amendment of Exemption and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
and Protests

October 2, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of Exemption to Revise Minimum Flow
Requirements.
    b. Project No: 9002-011.
    c. Date Filed: February 6, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company (d.b.a. Xcel Energy).
    e. Name of Project: Apple River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Apple River, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Robert W. Olson, Hydro Licensing Specialist,
Northern States Power Company (d.b.a. Xcel Energy), 1414 West Hamilton
Avenue, P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008; Telephone (715) 839-
1353, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Anumzziatta Purchiaroni, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protest:
November 2, 2007. All documents

(original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The exemptee seeks authorization to
amend terms and conditions, under Article 2 of the exemption to modify
the current minimum flow requirements, during the spring time period,
at the project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19894 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 12/31/2007 10:24 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone NAAQS

Thank you!

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:17 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: Re: Response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone

NAAQS

Heidi,

I don't know that we have anyone in on Monday who can work on responding

to your question, but we'll try to answer it by mid-next week.  I hope

that you and your famliy have a happy, healthy new year.

Lydia

----- Original Message -----

From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: 12/28/2007 03:24 PM EST

To: Lydia Wegman

Subject: RE: Response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone

NAAQS

Thank you, Lydia.

We understood on our call that the 250 new studies could be summarized

as follows:

65 panel studies

75 Time series - morbidity

75 Time series - mortality

  5 Cohort studies - mortality

30 Cohort studies - morbidity

If this is correct, could your team provide further characterization of

group of 30 morbidity cohort studies - which studies are you referring

to here?

Thank you; I hope you had a good holiday and a Happy New Year to you and

yours --

Heidi

Heidi R. King

OMB/OIRA

(202) 395-4551

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:03 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Schwab, Margo; Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone

NAAQS

Hi folks,

Please find Harvey and John's response to two questions you raised in

our last discussion about the ozone risk and exposure assessments.

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/20/2007 06:01 PM

-----

             Harvey

             Richmond/RTP/USE

             PA/US                                                   To

                                      Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             12/20/2007 05:52                                        cc

             PM                       Rosalina

                                      Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen

                                      Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John

                                      Langstaff/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave

                                      Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Re: response to 2 issues from

                                      teleconference with OMB on ozone

                                      NAAQS

 Lydia,

 Below are responses to 2 issues/questions raised by OMB.  These can be

forwarded to OMB.

 1.  Is there anything that the APEX exposure modeling output can tell

us about the relationship between the distribution of ambient

concentrations measured at the monitors and the distribution of personal

ozone exposures?

 Response: The exposure modeling performed (APEX) for ozone looked at

population distributions of exposure for each urban area and did not

provide information that can address the question raised about the

ratios of ambient concentrations to personal exposures for individuals

or populations living around each monitor in the urban area.

2.  Can you explain the difference between the ratio of 1.33 given in

the Rochester workgroup report relating 8-hr ozone and 24-hr ozone and

the ratio of about 2 given in the OAQPS Staff Paper?

Response:  The ratio discussed on p.35 of the Rochester report relates

to converting the average of 24-hr averages across all monitors in an

urban area to the average of 8-hr averages across all monitors in an

urban area.  In contrast, the ratio of about 2 discussed in the OAQPS

Staff Paper is relating the average of the 24-hr averages across all

monitors in an urban area with the 8-hr average at the highest monitor

within that same urban area.   Clearly, these are two very different

comparisons which are being done for different purposes.

Harvey

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 28229]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13466-000]

City of Gresham, OR; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

June 9, 2009.
    On May 15, 2009, the City of Gresham (permittee) filed an
application for a three-year preliminary permit under Section 4(f) of
the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ to study the feasibility of the
proposed 50-kilowatt (kW) City of Gresham Wastewater Treatment Plant
Outfall Hydroelectric Project No. 13466. The project would be located
in Multnomah County, Oregon. The existing City of Gresham Wastewater
Treatment Plant (plant) and outfall is owned by the permittee. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 797(f). Three years is the maximum term for a
preliminary permit. See FPA Section 5, 16 U.S.C. 798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current operating conditions, treated wastewater (effluent)
from the plant is discharged into three parallel outfall pipes. These
three pipes combine into a single pipeline before discharging the
effluent into the Columbia River. Under the permittee's proposal,
effluent in one of the existing three parallel pipes would flow into a
powerhouse to generate electricity before returning to the existing
pipeline system. The project would consist of: (1) An existing 3,650-
foot-long, 4-foot-diameter outfall pipe directing effluent from the
plant to the powerhouse and from the powerhouse to the final outfall
pipe; (2) a new 12-foot-high, 16-foot-long concrete powerhouse; (3) a
new single turbine/generator unit with an installed capacity of 50 kW;
(4) a new 10-foot-long, 10-foot-wide concrete building to house
additional controls and equipment; (5) an existing 650-foot-long, 4.5-
foot-diameter outfall pipe discharging flows into the Columbia River;
(6) a new 100-foot-long, 12.47-kilovolt transmission line extending
from the powerhouse to a proposed intertie with a Portland General
Electric power line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The plant and
portions of the outfall that are not directly affected by the project
are not included as project features. The proposed project would
generate about 413 megawatt-hours annually.
    Applicant Contact: Michael Nacrelli, Department of Environmental
Services, City of Gresham, Oregon, 1333 NW. Eastman Parkway, Gresham,
OR 97030; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link located at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http: //www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http: //www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13466) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14028 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 88244]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-3274]

Posting Adverse Event Report Data Associated With Conventional
Foods, Dietary Supplements, and Cosmetics on the Internet; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of data extracted from adverse event reports from January
2004 to the present involving food (including food additives, color
additives, and dietary supplements) and cosmetics regulated by our
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). The data files
are being made publicly available on FDA's Web site to improve
transparency about adverse event reports involving CFSAN-regulated
products and increase awareness about reporting these adverse events to
FDA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyle Canida, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-014), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of data extracted from the CFSAN
Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) from adverse event reports
involving food (including food additives, color additives, and dietary
supplements) and cosmetics regulated by CFSAN that were submitted to
FDA from January 2004 to the present. We will make these data files
available on a quarterly basis on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/ucm494015.htm. Each posting will
consist of adverse event report information entered in CAERS for the
previous 3 months with a roughly one month delay. The data files are
provided in ASCII format and include information on the following
topics (if provided):
     Demographic (e.g., age, gender) and administrative
information regarding the adverse event;
     Date of event;
     Product role (suspect or concomitant);
     Reported brand/product name;
     Industry code/name;
     Reported symptom(s); and
     Outcome information.

What is CAERS?

    The CAERS database collects reports submitted by consumers, health
professionals, industry, and others about adverse health events and
product complaints related to CFSAN-regulated products. It includes
voluntary reports involving conventional foods, including food
additives and color additives, and cosmetics, and both mandatory and
voluntary reports with respect to adverse events involving dietary
supplements. Reports are mandatory for dietary supplements used in the
United States in the case of a serious adverse event that has resulted
in death, a life-threatening experience, inpatient hospitalization, a
persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital
anomaly or birth defect, or that requires, based on reasonable medical
judgment, a medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of those
outcomes (see 21 U.S.C. 379aa-1). In such cases, dietary supplement
manufacturers, packers, and distributors must notify FDA if they
receive reports about serious adverse events associated with the use of
the dietary supplement.
    The goal of CAERS is to improve consumer protection by providing
FDA with information from which we may be able to quickly identify
situations in which the data provide a signal that a particular product
may be harmful and should be investigated further.
    However, we note that adverse event reports about a particular
product and the total number of adverse event reports for a product in
the CAERS database only reflect information reported and do not
represent any conclusion by FDA about whether the product actually
caused the adverse event(s). Because we constantly update CAERS with
new information, the number of reports for a given product and the
content of individual reports may change over time. Furthermore, even
with respect to dietary supplements, for which reporting of serious
adverse events is mandatory, adverse events associated with any product
may be underreported. On the other hand, in some instances there may be
duplicate reports in CAERS for the same adverse event because multiple
people (such as an injured consumer and a health care provider who
treated him or her) may have submitted reports. Questions and answers
(Q&As) accompanying the data at our Web site explain the data
limitations, as well as the reasons why we need complete reporting.

Why is CFSAN posting these data on the FDA Web site?

     We are making this information available for the purpose
of improving transparency by providing the public, including
researchers and health care professionals, with online access to
information from adverse event reports about CFSAN-regulated products.
This information has previously been available only through the process
of specific requests under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552. In addition, we believe that posting these data may increase the
number and completeness of the adverse event reports we receive. For
the most part, FDA does not have pre-market authority over foods and
cosmetics. As a result, identifying through post-market surveillance
possible risks associated with these products is critical.

Where and when will data be posted?

     We will post CAERS data on a quarterly basis on the FDA
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/ucm494015.htm. Each posting will include adverse event reports entered
in CAERS for the previous 3 month period, with a roughly one month
delay. So for example, if we post data files on the CAERS Web page in
February, the information would consist of adverse event reports
entered (or revised) in CAERS during the previous October thru December
time period. Data files from the January thru March time period would
be posted in the following May, and so on.

    Dated: December 1, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29277 Filed 12-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45806]
[DOCID:fr10au06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-427-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

August 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 26, 2006, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America (Natural), 747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148, filed
in Docket No. CP06-427-000, a request pursuant to sections 157.205 and
157. 208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act and
its blanket certificate issued in Docket No CP82-402-000 for
authorization to replace approximately 4.34 miles of Natural's 30-inch
Louisiana Mainline No. 1 line in Liberty County, Texas with new,
heavier walled 30-inch pipeline in an adjacent right-of-way at a cost
of approximately $11.9 million. This filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Natural states that in order to continue to operate this segment of
its pipeline system at current, required operating pressures, the
subject 4.34 mile long segment of pipe must be upgraded to a higher
classification of pipe. Due to residential congestion that has built up
along natural's Louisiana Mainline No. 1 easement, Natural finds that
it will be impossible to replace the pipe along the existing right-of-
way easement for the entire 4.34 miles.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Rates and Certificates, Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America, 747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois
60148-5072, or call<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13045 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P