  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0297; FRL-   ]

RIN A2060

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:  Allocation of Essential Use
Allowances for Calendar Year 2008

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to allocate essential use allowances for
import and production of Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) for
calendar year 2008.  Essential use allowances enable a person to obtain
controlled Class I ODSs as part of an exemption to the regulatory ban on
the production and import of these chemicals, which became effective as
of January 1, 1996.  EPA allocates essential use allowances for exempted
production or import of a specific quantity of Class I substances solely
for the designated essential purpose.  The proposed allocations total
27.0 metric tons (MT) of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for use in metered
dose inhalers (MDIs) for 2008.

DATES:  Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by the
EPA Docket on or before [insert date 30 days after date of publication],
unless a public hearing is requested.  Comments must then be received on
or before 30 days following the public hearing.  Any party requesting a
public hearing must notify the contact listed below under “For More
Information Contact” by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on [insert
date 5 days after publication].  If a hearing is held, it will take
place on [insert date 15 days after publication] at EPA headquarters in
Washington D.C.  EPA will post a notice on our website
(www.epa.gov/ozone) announcing further information on the hearing if it
is requested.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR
-2007-0297, by one of the following methods:

	  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov :
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     	•	Email:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     	•	Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, attn: Kirsten M. Cappel

Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Hand Delivery or Courier.  Deliver your comments to: EPA Air Docket, EPA
West 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, D.C. 20460.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR
-2007-0297.  EPA's policy is that all comments received by the docket
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected.  If you would like the Agency to consider comments that
include CBI, EPA recommends that you submit the comments to the docket
that exclude the CBI portion but that you provide a complete version of
your comments, including the CBI, to the person listed under ADDRESSES
above.  The   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  website is an “anonymous access” system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet.  If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit.  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.  Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.  For additional
information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  index.  Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at
the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.  This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kirsten M. Cappel, by regular mail:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division
(6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460; by courier
service or overnight express:  1301 L Street, N.W., Room 1047C,
Washington D.C., 20005;  by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

General Information

		What should I consider when preparing my comments?

Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances

What are essential use allowances?

Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use allowances?

What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?

Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices

Proposed Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2008

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13211:  Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I.	General Information

    What should I consider when preparing my comments?

	1. Confidential Business Information.  Do not submit this information
to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI.  For CBI information in
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed
as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

	2.  Tips for Preparing Your Comments.  When submitting comments,
remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.

Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or
data that you used.

If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.

Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II.	Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances

A.  What are essential use allowances?

	Essential use allowances are allowances to produce or import certain
ODSs in the U.S. for purposes that have been deemed “essential” by
the U.S. Government and by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol).

	The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement aimed at reducing
and eliminating the production and consumption of ODSs.  The elimination
of production and consumption of Class I ODSs is accomplished through
adherence to phaseout schedules for specific Class I ODSs, which include
CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform.  As of
January 1, 1996, production and import of most Class I ODSs were phased
out in developed countries, including the United States.

	However, the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act (the Act) provide
exemptions that allow for the continued import and/or production of
Class I ODSs for specific uses.  Under the Montreal Protocol, exemptions
may be granted for uses that are determined by the Parties to be
"essential."  Decision IV/25, taken by the Parties to the Protocol in
1992, established criteria for determining whether a specific use should
be approved as essential, and set forth the international process for
making determinations of essentiality.  The criteria for an essential
use, as set forth in paragraph 1 of Decision IV/25, are the following:

	"(a) that a use of a controlled substance should qualify as
‘essential’ only if:

	(i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the
functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects);
and

	(ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of
environment and health;

	(b) that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance
for essential uses should be permitted only if:

	(i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the
essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance;
and

	(ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity
and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled
substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries’ need for
controlled substances."

B.  Under what authority does EPA allocate essential use allowances?

	Title VI of the Act implements the Montreal Protocol for the United
States.  Section 604(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to allow the
production of limited quantities of Class I ODSs after the phase out
date for the following essential uses:

	(1)  Methyl Chloroform, “solely for use in essential applications
(such as nondestructive testing for metal fatigue and corrosion of
existing airplane engines and airplane parts susceptible to metal
fatigue) for which no safe and effective substitute is available.”
Under section 604(d)(1) of the Act, this exemption was available only
until January 1, 2005.  Prior to that date, EPA issued methyl chloroform
allowances to the U.S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket programs.

	(2) Medical devices (as defined in section 601(8) of the Act), “if
such authorization is determined by the Commissioner [of the Food and
Drug Administration], in consultation with the Administrator [of EPA] to
be necessary for use in medical devices.”  EPA issues allowances to
manufacturers of MDIs that use CFCs as propellant for the treatment of
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

	(3) Aviation safety, for which limited quantities of halon-1211,
halon-1301, and halon-2402 may be produced “if the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the
Administrator [of EPA] determines that no safe and effective substitute
has been developed and that such authorization is necessary for aviation
safety purposes.”  Neither EPA nor the Parties have ever granted a
request for essential use allowances for halon, because alternatives are
available or because existing quantities of this substance are large
enough to provide for any needs for which alternatives have not yet been
developed.

	An additional essential use exemption under the Montreal Protocol, as
agreed in Decision X/19, is the general exemption for laboratory and
analytical uses.  This exemption is reflected in EPA’s regulations at
40 CFR part 82, subpart A.  While the Act does not specifically provide
for this exemption, EPA has determined that an exemption for essential
laboratory and analytical uses is allowable under the Act as a de
minimis exemption.  The de minimis exemption is addressed in EPA’s
final rule of March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14760-14770).  The Parties to the
Protocol subsequently agreed (Decision XI/15) that the general exemption
does not apply to the following uses:  testing of oil and grease, and
total petroleum hydrocarbons in water; testing of tar in road-paving
materials; and forensic finger-printing.  EPA incorporated this
exemption at Appendix G to Subpart A of 40 CFR part 82 on February 11,
2002 (67 FR 6352).  In a December 29, 2005 final rule, EPA extended the
general exemption for laboratory and analytical uses through December
31, 2007 (70 FR 77048), in accordance with Decision XV/8 of the Parties
to the Protocol.  EPA plans to update this exemption in accordance with
future Decisions from the Parties and its own regulations.

C.  What is the process for allocating essential use allowances?

	The procedure set out by Decision IV/25 calls for individual Parties to
nominate essential uses and the total amount of ODSs needed for those
essential uses on an annual basis.  The Protocol’s Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) evaluates the nominated essential uses
and makes recommendations to the Protocol Parties.  The Parties make the
final decisions on whether to approve a Party’s essential use
nomination at their annual meeting.  This nomination process occurs
approximately two years before the year in which the allowances would be
in effect.  The allowances proposed for allocation for 2008 were first
nominated by the United States in January 2006.

	For MDIs, EPA requests information from manufacturers about the number
and type of MDIs they plan to produce, as well as the amount of CFCs
necessary for production.  EPA then forwards the information to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), which determines the amount of CFCs
necessary for MDIs in the coming calendar year.  Based on FDA’s
determination, EPA proposes allocations to each eligible entity.  Under
the Act and the Protocol, EPA may allocate essential use allowances in
quantities that together are below or equal to the total amount approved
by the Parties.  EPA will not allocate essential use allowances in
amounts higher than the total approved by the Parties.  For 2008, the
Parties authorized the United States to allocate up to

385 MT of CFCs for essential uses.  In the 2008 nomination for essential
use allowances, the United States did not request CFCs for use in MDIs
where the sole active ingredient is albuterol.

III.  Essential Use Allowances for Medical Devices

	The following is a step-by-step list of actions EPA and FDA have taken
thus far to implement the exemption for medical devices found at section
604(d)(2) of the Act for the 2008 calendar year.

	1.  On January 27, 2007, EPA sent letters to MDI manufacturers
requesting the following information under section 114 of the Act
(“114 letters”):

		a. The MDI product where CFCs will be used.

		b. The number of units of each MDI product produced from 1/1/06 to
12/31/06.

		c. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2007.

		d. The number of units anticipated to be produced in 2008.

		e. The gross target fill weight per unit (grams).

		f. Total amount of CFCs to be contained in the MDI product for 2008.

		g. The additional amount of CFCs necessary for production.

		h. The total CFC request per MDI product for 2008.

The 114 letters are available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2007-0297.  The companies requested that their responses be
treated as confidential business information; for this reason, EPA has
placed the responses in the confidential portion of the docket.

	2. On January 30, 2007, as required by 40 CFR 82.13(u), EPA received
information from MDI manufacturers that included such data as the type
and quantity of CFCs held at the end of the year (i.e. stocks of
pre-1996 and post- 1996 CFCs).  The data submitted in reports from each
MDI manufacturer is available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2007-0297.  The companies requested that their responses be
treated as confidential business information; for this reason, EPA has
placed the individual responses in the confidential portion of the
docket.

	3. On February 28, 2007, EPA sent FDA the information MDI manufacturers
provided in response to the 114 letters and information required by 40
CFR 82.13(u) with a letter requesting that FDA make a determination
regarding the amount of CFCs necessary for MDIs for calendar year 2008.
This letter is available for review in Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0297.

	4.  On May 1, 2007 FDA sent a letter to EPA stating the amount of CFCs
determined by the Commissioner to be necessary for each MDI company in
2008.  This letter is available for review in the Air Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2007-0297.  FDA’s letter informed EPA that it had
determined that 27.0 MT of CFCs were medically necessary for use in MDIs
in 2008.  The letter stated “Our determination for the allocation of
CFCs is lower than the total amount requested by sponsors.  In reaching
this estimate, we took into account the sponsors’ production of MDIs
that used CFCs as propellant in 2006, their estimated production in
2007, their estimated production in 2008, their anticipated
essential-use allocations in 2007, and their current (as of December 31,
2006) stockpile levels.  Our determination took into account any
transferred CFCs as well as pre-1996 CFC amounts.  We also considered
the different types and blends of CFCs necessary to produce specific
MDIs.  Finally, we based our determination for 2008 on an estimate of
the quantity of CFCs that would allow manufacturers to have a 12-month
stockpile at the end of 2008 in accordance with paragraph 3 of Decision
XVI/12 and paragraph 2 of Decision XVII/5.”

	The letter stated that in making its determination, FDA made the
following assumptions:

All manufacturers will receive the full essential use allocation
proposed by EPA for calendar year 2007 (71 FR 64668, November 3, 2006);

All manufacturers will procure the full quantity of CFCs allocated to
them for calendar year 2007;

The number of albuterol CFC MDIs produced in 2008 will be no more than
half of the number produced in 2007, with albuterol HFA MDIs making up
the remainder; and

No bulk CFC currently held by, or allocated to, any manufacturer will be
exported from the United States.

	FDA’s determination specified that the essential use allowances
allocated for 2008 should only be used to acquire CFC-114 for the
production of epinephrine MDIs.  In its letter to EPA, FDA stated, “In
recent years, we aggregated the amounts for CFC-11, -12, and -114 and
provided recommendations on the total amounts necessary to protect the
public health.  This year, as sponsors transition to non-CFC alternative
and require smaller amounts of CFCs to produce CFC MDIs, we considered
individual amounts of CFCs necessary to protect the public health and
recommend an allocation of 27.0 tonnes of CFC-114 to Armstrong for the
manufacturer of epinephrine CFC MDIs.”  Consistent with FDA’s
determination letter, EPA is allocating 22.4 MT of CFC-114 to Armstrong
for the production of epinephrine MDIs for 2008.

	EPA has confirmed with FDA that this determination is consistent with
Decision XVII/5, including language on stocks that states that
“Parties shall take into account pre- and post- 1996 stocks of
controlled substances as described in paragraph 1 (b) of Decision IV/25,
such that no more that a one-year operational supply is maintained by
that manufacturer.”  In their analysis of a one-year operational
supply of CFCs for the production of CFC-albuterol MDIs, FDA informed
EPA that it calculates volumes to allow the manufacturer to end the
calendar year with the appropriate level stock of CFCs for essential
uses.  Allowing manufacturers to maintain up to a one-year operational
supply accounts for unexpected variability in the demand for MDI
products or other unexpected occurrences in the market and therefore
ensures that MDI manufacturers are able to produce their essential use
MDIs.

	In accordance with the FDA determination, today’s action proposes to
allocate essential use allowances to Armstrong for a total of 27.0 MT of
CFC-114 for the production of epinephrine MDI’s only for calendar year
2008.

	The amounts listed in this proposal are subject to additional review,
and revision, by EPA and FDA if information demonstrates that the
proposed allocations are either too high or too low.  We specifically
request comment on the extent to which the proposed allocation of CFCs
is sufficient to protect public health and ensure the manufacture and
continuous availability of CFCs necessary to meet the expected demand.
We also request comment on whether the proposed allocations (along with
current stocks) – or an alternative level – will best protect
consumers by providing a smooth transition to non-CFC alternatives.
Commenters requesting increases or decreases of essential use allowances
should provide detailed information supporting their claim for
additional or fewer CFCs.  Any company that needs less than the full
amount listed in this proposal should notify EPA of the actual amount
needed.

IV. Proposed Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year
2008

TABLE I. - ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES FOR

CALENDAR YEAR 2008

Company	Chemical	2008 Quantity (metric tons)

(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Armstrong Pharmaceuticals	CFC-114

(production of epinephrine MDIs only)	27.0

EPA proposes to allocate essential use allowances for calendar year 2008
to the entity listed in Table I.  These allowances are for the
production or import of the specified quantity of Class I controlled
substances solely for the specified essential use.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order (EO) 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action”
because it raises novel legal or policy issues.  Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

	EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits related to
this action.  This analysis is contained in the Agency’s Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the entire Title VI phaseout program (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Compliance with Section 604 of the Clean Air Act for the Phaseout of
Ozone Depleting Chemicals,” July 1992).  A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized here.  The RIA examined the projected economic costs of a
complete phaseout of consumption of ozone-depleting substances, as well
as the projected benefits of phased reductions in total emissions of
CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, including essential use CFCs
used for MDIs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

	This action does not impose any new information collection burden.  The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this action are
already included in an existing information collection burden and this
action does not propose any changes that would affect the burden.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations at 40 CFR 82.8(a) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0170, EPA ICR number 1432.25.  A copy of the OMB
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan
Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.

	For purposes of assessing the impact of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) pharmaceutical
preparations manufacturing businesses (NAICS code 325412) that have less
than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that
is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant its field.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 After considering the economic impacts of
today’s proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.  In determining whether a rule has a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of
concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities,
since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any
significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 USC 603
and 604.  Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

	This action, once finalized, will provide an otherwise unavailable
benefit to those companies that are receiving essential use allowances
by creating an exemption to the regulatory phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons.  We have therefore concluded that today's proposed
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.  We continue
to be interested in the potential impact of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.

	Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative, if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.

	Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed a small government agency plan under
section 203 of the UMRA.  The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.

	Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector, since it merely provides
exemptions from the 1996 phase out of Class I ODSs.  Similarly, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because this rule
merely allocates essential use exemptions to entities as an exemption to
the ban on production and import of Class I ODSs.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”

	This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

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

	Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  Today's proposed
rule affects only the companies that requested essential use allowances.
 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be
“economically significant” under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions
that are based on health or safety risks, such as the analysis required
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the
regulation.  This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it
implements Section 604(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act which states that the
Agency shall authorize essential use exemptions should the Food and Drug
Administration determine that such exemptions are necessary.

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

	This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 Fed. Reg. 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.  The rule affects only the
pharmaceutical companies that requested essential use allowances.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 ("NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.  This proposed
rule does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

	Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

	EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because any change in the
level of environmental protection for any affected populations will not
have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  Any impacts of this proposed rule will be
equally distributed among all populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

Dated:  ________________________________________

______________________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

40 CFR Part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 82—PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Subpart A—Production and Consumption Controls

2.  Section 82.8 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:

§ 82.8 Grants of essential use allowances and critical use allowances.

(a) ***

TABLE I. - ESSENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008

Company	Chemical	2008 Quantity (metric tons)

(i) Metered Dose Inhalers (for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Armstrong Pharmaceuticals	CFC-114

(production of epinephrine MDIs only)

	27.0

*******

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 “Consumption” is defined as the amount of a substance produced in
the United States, plus the amount imported into the United States,
minus the amount exported to Parties to the Montreal Protocol (see
Section 601(6) of the Clean Air Act).

  Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at 40 CFR Part 82,
subpart A, appendix A.

 See Section 614(b) of the Act.  EPA’s regulations implementing the
essential use provisions of the Act and the Protocol are located in 40
CFR part 82.

 PAGE

  PAGE   15


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5151-5152]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-45-000, CP09-48-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company and Chipeta Processing LLC;
Notice of Application

January 23, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 13, 2009, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, CO 80944, filed an
application in Docket No. CP09-45-000, pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act and section 157.5 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting permission and approval to abandon, by sale and transfer to
Chipeta Processing LLC (Chipeta), CIG's existing Natural Buttes
Compressor Station and Processing Plant along with certain pipeline
facilities and appurtenances located in Uintah County, Utah. Take
further notice that on January 15, 2009, Chipeta, 1099 18th Street,
Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202, filed an application in Docket No. CP09-
48-000, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations,
requesting a Declaratory Order disclaiming jurisdiction and declaring
certain facilities (The facilities CIG proposes to abandon by sale in
Docket No. CP09-45-000) and services to be exempt from Regulation under
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing may also 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, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application, Docket No. CP09-45-000,
should be directed to Richard Derryberry, Director, Regulatory Affairs,
Colorado Interstate Gas Company, PO Box 1087 Colorado Springs, CO
80944, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any questions regarding this application, Docket No. CP09-48-000,
should be directed to Alex T. Wyche, Andarko Petroleum Corporation,
1099 18th St., Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: February 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1894 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56509-56511]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87321; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Move Certain Rules in Chapter XXIX of the Currently Effective
Rulebook to Proposed Section E of Chapter 4 of the Shell Structure for
the Exchange's Rulebook That Will Become Effective Upon the Migration
of the Exchange's Trading Platform

October 16, 2019.
    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 October 3, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to move certain Rules in Chapter XXIX, which governs Credit Option
contracts, of the currently effective Rulebook (``current Rulebook'')
to proposed Section E of Chapter 4 of the shell structure for the
Exchange's Rulebook that will become effective upon the migration of
the Exchange's trading platform to the same system used by the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges (as defined below) (``shell Rulebook''). The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align
certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences,
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to the
same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the Exchange
expects to complete on October 7, 2019. In connection with this
technology migration, the Exchange has a shell Rulebook that resides
alongside its current Rulebook, which shell Rulebook will contain the
Rules that will be in place upon completion of the Cboe Options
technology migration.
    The Exchange proposes to relocate rules under current Chapter XXIX
which governs Credit Option contracts, to proposed Section E of Chapter
4 in the shell Rulebook. The Exchange notes that in addition to
relocating these current rules to proposed shell Section E of Chapter
4, the proposed rule change deletes the rules from the current
Rulebook. The proposed rule change relocates the rules as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Proposed rule                         Current rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory paragraph under Section E   Introduction.
 heading.
4.40 Credit Default Definitions........  29.1 Definitions.
4.41 Designation of Credit Default       29.2 Designation of Credit
 Option Contracts.                        Default Option Contracts.
4.42 Designation and Terms of Credit     29.2A Designation and Terms of
 Default Basket Option Contracts.         Credit Default Basket Option
                                          Contracts.
4.43 Withdrawal of Approval of           29.3 Withdrawal.
 Underlying Reference Entity.
4.44 Adjustments.......................  29.4 Adjustments.
4.45 FLEX Trading......................  29.18. FLEX Trading.
4.46 Trading Rotations.................  29.12 Trading Rotations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not
amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers, conform
paragraph structure \3\ and number/lettering format to that of the
shell Rulebook, and make

cross-reference changes to shell rules. As indicated above, the
proposed rule change relocates current Rule 29.12 to proposed Rule
4.46. Current Rule 29.12, however, currently contains rule language
that is no longer applicable to the Exchange. It currently states that
in accordance with Rule 6.2 (Rule 5.31 in the shell Rulebook), at a
randomly selected time within a number of seconds after 8:30 a.m. (CT),
unless unusual circumstances exist, the System will initiate the
opening procedure and send a Rotation Notice. The Exchange notes that
this language referenced in current Rule 29.12 regarding the opening
process in Rule 6.2 (shell Rule 5.31) had prior been amended,\4\ and
Rule 29.12 was inadvertently not updated to reflect the amended opening
process. Therefore, the proposed rule change updates current 29.12
(proposed Rule 4.46) to simply reflect the existing opening process
language in shell Rule 5.31 (current Rule 6.2) by stating that in
accordance with Rule 5.31(d), at an Exchange-determined number of
seconds following 9:30 a.m., the System will initiate the opening
rotation.\5\ The proposed rule change also removes current Rule
29.14(d) which states that the rules of priority and order allocation
procedures set forth in (current) Rule 6.45 (shell Rules 5.32 and 5.85)
apply to Credit Options, as this is redundant of the shell Rules 5.32
and 5.85 themselves because they already govern the priority and order
allocation of all options trading on the Exchange, both electronically
(shell Rule 5.32) and in open outcry (shell Rule 5.85). Also, the
proposed change removes the remainder of the rule text under current
Rule 29.14, which states that Rule 29.14 supplements (current) Rules
6.41, 6.42, 6.44 and 6.45, because all provisions under current Rule
29.14 have already been relocated to other rules in the shell Rulebook
in anticipation of migration and would apply to Credit Options \6\ and,
therefore, current Rule 29.14 as a whole will no longer exist upon
migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the paragraph structure for
definitions listed under rules in the shell Rulebook is in
alphabetized format. Therefore, the same structure is used under
proposed Rule 4.40.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79520 (December 9,
2016), 81 FR 90896 (December 15, 2019) (Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating To
Opening and Closing Rotations Under the HOSS System) (SR-CBOE-2016-
071).
    \5\ The Exchange notes it does not currently list any Credit
Options for trading, so this change will have no impact on any
current trading.
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 86772 (August
27, 2019), 84 FR 46069 (September 3, 2019) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules
Related to How the System Handles Incoming Orders and Open Outcry
Trading in Connection With the Migration of the Exchange's Trading
Platform to the Same System Used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges)
(SR-CBOE-2019-042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to
the rules. The proposed rule change is merely intended to relocate the
Exchange's rules to the shell Rulebook and update their numbers,
paragraph structure, including number and lettering format, and cross-
references (including updating certain rule text to accurately
reiterate rule language to which a cross-reference refers), and remove
a redundant provision already specifically covered under other shell
rules, to conform to the shell Rulebook as a whole in anticipation of
the technology migration on October 7, 2019. As such, the proposed rule
change 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, by improving the way the Exchange's
Rulebook is organized, making it easier to read, and, particularly,
helping market participants better understand the rules of the
Exchange, which will also result in less burdensome and more efficient
regulatory compliance.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
intended as a competitive change, but rather, seeks to make non-
substantive rule changes in relocating the rules, updating cross-
references (and cross-referenced rule text) to shell rules, and
removing a redundant provision already specifically covered under other
rules, in anticipation of the October 7, 2019 technology migration. The
Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any undue burden on competition because the relocated rule text
is exactly the same as the Exchange's current rules, all of which have
all been previously filed with the Commission.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
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 \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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
Commission has waived that requirement in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\
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 notes that the proposed rule change is merely
relocating certain rules to its shell rulebook--which includes
corresponding updates to rule numbers, cross-references, and other
references--in order to conform these rules to the shell rulebook upon
the technology migration explained above. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will make its rules easier to read and
understand for all investors. The Exchange also asserts that the
relocation of the rules explained above will not impose any significant
burden on competition as the substance of the rules remains unchanged.
The Commission agrees that allowing this proposed rule change to become
operative upon filing in order to facilitate the Exchange's technology
migration--without changing the substance of these Exchange Rules--is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ 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-CBOE-2019-089 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-CBOE-2019-089. 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 offices 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-CBOE-2019-089, and should be submitted
on or before November 12, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22936 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24228]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 370, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 382, 387, 390,
391, 395, 396, and 398

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0376]
RIN 2126-AB47

Electronic Documents and Signatures; Correction

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction and withdrawal of regulatory guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA corrects the electronic documents and signatures final
rule published on April 16, 2018 that amended FMCSA regulations to
allow the use of electronic records and signatures to satisfy FMCSA's
regulatory requirements. This document corrects an amendatory
instruction, removes two extra commas at the end of two phrases, and
adds ``of this section'' to a cross reference in a paragraph. Finally,
FMCSA rescinds its January 4, 2011, interpretations and regulatory
guidance.

DATES: This correction is effective June 15, 2018. As of June 15, 2018,
the document published at 76 FR 411 on Jan.4, 2011, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Miller, Office of Policy,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2018-07749, appearing on page
16210 in the Federal Register of Monday, April 16, 2018, the following
corrections are made:

0
1. In the preamble, on page 16218, in the second column, under the
heading ``49 CFR 390.31,'' following the sentence that reads ``The
requirement that the Agency be able to inspect records applies
regardless of whether the copy is in paper or electronic form'', add a
new paragraph to read as follows: ``In consideration of the final rule
on electronic documents and signatures, the Agency rescinds Questions 1
through 13 (76 FR 411, Jan.4, 2011) (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/390.31).''

Sec.  376.12   [Corrected]

0
2. On page 16224, in the third column, in amendment 17, the instruction
``Amend Sec.  376.12 by revising paragraphs (f), (g), and (l) to read
as follows:'' is corrected to read ``Amend Sec.  376.12 by revising the
section heading and paragraphs (f), (g), and (l) to read as follows:''.

Sec.  390.5   [Corrected]

0
3. On page 16226, in the third column, in Sec.  390.5, the phrase
``1701-1710,,'' is corrected to read ``1701-1710,''.

Sec.  390.5T   [Corrected]

0
4. On page 16226, in the third column, in Sec.  390.5T, the phrase
``1701-1710,,'' is corrected to read ``1701-1710,''.

Sec.  395.15   [Corrected]

0
5. On page 16227, in the second column, in Sec.  395.15(b)(5) the
phrase ``in paragraph (b)(4)'' is corrected to read ``in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section''.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87: May 9,
2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-11127 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37162-37163]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15850]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64712; File No. SR-OCC-2011-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Allow for an Expansion of OCC's
Internal Cross-Margining Program To Include the Ability of a Pair of
Affiliated Clearing Members To Establish an Internal Non-Proprietary
Cross-Margining Account

June 21, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On March 17, 2011, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2011-03 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 7, 2011.\2\
The Commission received three comment letters on the proposal,
including OCC's letter responding to one of the commenters.\3\ This
order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-63811 (February 1,
2011), 76 FR 6648 (February 7, 2011).
    \3\ Letter from Gene Thomas (Retired), (April 24, 2011); letter
from Andrew S. Margolin, Associate General Counsel, Bank of America
Corporation, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission (April
21, 2010); and letter from Stephen M. Szamarck, V.P. Associate
General Counsel, OCC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission
(May 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of this rule change is to expand OCC's internal cross-
margining program to permit a pair of affiliated clearing members to
establish a cross-margining account (``Internal Non-Proprietary Cross-
Margining Account'') in which securities and security futures that are
cleared by OCC in its capacity as a securities clearing agency may be
cross-margined with commodity futures and options on such futures that
are cleared by OCC in its capacity as a derivatives clearing
organization (``DCO'') registered with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'').
    In 2004, the CFTC and the Commission \4\ approved OCC's proposal to
create an ``internal cross-margining'' program under which an OCC
clearing member could elect to cross-margin a non-proprietary futures
account of a ``market professional'' \5\ with a non-proprietary
securities account containing positions of the same market
professional. At OCC, the securities and futures positions of all
market professionals with cross-margined accounts at the clearing
member are combined in a single Internal Non-Proprietary Cross-
Margining Account of the clearing member at OCC. The existing program,
which has operated successfully since 2004, requires that the same
clearing member clear the securities and futures positions. In
contrast, the existing cross-margining programs between OCC and other
DCOs, such as the clearing division of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(``CME'') and ICE Clear U.S., permit cross-margining where the member
of the futures clearing organization is a different entity from its
affiliate that is an OCC clearing member. The purpose of this proposed
rule change is to expand the existing internal cross-margining program
in an analogous way so that it would permit an Internal Non-Proprietary
Cross-Margining Account to be maintained at OCC jointly by a pair of
affiliated clearing members that clear transactions in securities
options and in futures products through two different entities. In
order to participate, both OCC clearing members would have to be
affiliates of one another and would have to be registered as both a
futures commission merchant under the CEA and as a broker-dealer under
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-50509 (October 8,
2004), 69 FR 61289 (October 15, 2004).
    \5\ As set forth in OCC's By-Laws, a market professional could
be a market-maker, specialist or person acting in a similar capacity
on a securities exchange, or a member of a futures exchange trading
for its own account. A non-proprietary market professional is any
market professional that is required to be treated as a ``customer''
under the CEA, and therefore excludes any market professional that
is affiliated with the carrying clearing member in a way that would
cause its account to be treated as a ``proprietary account'' under
Section 1.3(y) of the CFTC's regulations. OCC By-Laws, Article I,
Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's current internal cross-margining program does not provide for
internal cross-margining accounts to be carried jointly by a pair of
affiliated clearing members because OCC did not believe in 2004 that
there was any clearing member demand for such a service. Recently,
however, OCC has learned that there is demand for such a service. Under
OCC's current proposal, two affiliated clearing members will jointly
maintain an Internal Non-Proprietary Cross-Margining Account. The
clearing member that normally clears transactions in securities options
would submit transactions in eligible securities options to the account
for clearance, and the clearing member that normally clears
transactions in futures

products would submit transactions in eligible futures products to the
account for clearance.
    OCC is amending its current By-Laws and Rules governing internal
cross-margining to create rules similar to the rules of the long-
standing cross-margining program between OCC and CME, for example, for
affiliated clearing members. In the case of the cross-margining
programs between OCC and other DCOs, there are two accounts at the
clearing level--one at each of the participating clearing
organizations. In the internal cross-margining program, there is no
need for two separate accounts, which would in any event be margined
together and for which the affiliated clearing members would in any
event be jointly and severally liable as they are for the two accounts
in the case of the OCC-CME program.
    Article VI, Section 25(b) of OCC's By-Laws currently requires
clearing members to obtain a ``Market Professional's Agreement for
Internal Cross-Margining'' from each market professional whose
positions are included in an Internal Non-Proprietary Cross-Margining
Account. OCC will use a modified form of this agreement for the account
held jointly by a pair of affiliated clearing members.\6\ OCC does not
intend to require current participants in the internal cross-margining
program to obtain reexecuted agreements in updated form because the
modifications are clarifications only and not substantive changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed form of the agreement, titled ``Market
Professional's Agreement for Internal Cross-Margining (Affiliated
Clearing Members)'' is attached as Exhibit 5A to the proposed rule
change filing. The existing ``Market Professional's Agreement for
Internal Cross-Margining'' applicable to the internal cross-
margining program for single clearing members has been renamed
``Market Professional's Agreement for Internal Cross-Margining
(Single Clearing Member)'' and is attached as Exhibit 5B to the
proposed rule change filing. In addition to modifying the title to
the form of the agreement applicable to single clearing members, a
sentence has been added at the end of paragraph seven of that
agreement to conform it to the corresponding provision in the form
of the agreement for affiliated clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the case of the existing internal cross-margining program,
the Internal Non-Proprietary Cross-Margining Account would be treated
as a segregated futures account under Section 4d of the CEA and, in
accordance with Appendix B to Part 190 of the CFTC's regulations, would
be separately segregated from the regular segregated futures account
that an OCC clearing member may maintain under Article VI, Section 3(f)
of OCC's By-Laws. In order to expand the internal cross-margining
program to include accounts carried by pairs of affiliated clearing
members, OCC has requested that the CFTC either issue a new or amended
order under Section 4d of the CEA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OCC will not implement the internal cross-margining program
for affiliated clearing members until after such time that the CFTC
has issued an order or amended order under Section 4d of the CEA as
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received one comment letter opposing the proposed
rule change \8\ and one comment letter in favor of the proposed rule
change.\9\ OCC responded to the letter in opposition to the
proposal.\10\ The commenter opposing OCC's proposal stated that there
was ``no universal advantage to commingled monies or other valued
properties'' and that he ``visualize[d] the possibility of from [sic]
frequent disagreements between the Dual Registrants and OCC.'' In its
response, OCC disagreed and stated that cross-margining programs ``are
consistent with clearing agency responsibilities under Section 17A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are highly beneficial to the
clearing organizations, its clearing members and the public.''\11\ OCC
also stated in its response that the internal cross-margining program
is limited to OCC clearing members and that participation in the
program is completely voluntary. OCC response also indicated that it
was not aware of any disagreements between dual registrants and OCC
over the many years that the various cross-margining agreements have
been in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Gene Thomas, supra note 3.
    \9\ Letter from Andrew Margolin, supra note 3.
    \10\ Letter from OCC, supra note 3.
    \11\ Id at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter in support of OCC's proposed rule change stated he
supported the proposal because it ``would harmonize the manner in which
OCC conducts its internal cross-margining program with the manner in
which existing cross-margining programs between OCC and other
derivatives clearing organizations (e.g., the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange) are conducted.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See BofA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \13\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Since it
granted approval of the first cross-margining program in 1988,\14\ the
Commission has found that cross-margining programs are consistent with
clearing agency responsibilities under Section 17A of the Act \15\ and
highly beneficial to the clearing organization, its clearing members,
and the public. The Commission has found that cross-margining programs
enhance clearing member and systemic liquidity both in times of normal
market conditions and in times of stress. They result in lower initial
margin deposits, which can reduce the risk that a clearing member will
become insolvent in a distressed market and the risk of a ripple effect
of multiple insolvencies caused by the demise of a major market
participant.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-26153 (October 3,
1988), 53 FR 39567 (October 7, 1988).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-32708 (August 2,
1993), 58 FR 42586 (August 10, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \17\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2011-03) be,
and hereby is, approved.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15850 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 55952]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-76-000]

Oasis Plains Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Oasis Plains Wind, LLC'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 31, 2019.
    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 website 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 11, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22792 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P