[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72465-72468]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29490]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76438; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

November 13, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 2, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes
effective November 2, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule in a number
of different ways, effective November 2, 2015. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to increase certain Take Liquidity Fees charged; to
introduce new posting credits; and to modify the Take Fee Discount
Qualification, as described below.
Transaction Fees for Taking Liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues
    The Exchange proposes to modify the fees paid by Market Makers,
Lead Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers, and Professional
Customers (collectively, ``Non-Customers'') for Taking Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Issues (``Take Fees''). Currently, Non-Customers pay Take
Fees of $0.50 per contract for electronic executions. The Exchange
proposes to raise that fee to $0.52 per contract, which is within the
range of fees charged by competing option exchanges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, MIAX charges $0.55 for executions [sic] in the
following penny pilot options: EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ and SPY. See MIAX
fee schedule, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10012015C.pdf. BOX assesses
fees greater than $0.55 to Non-customers [sic] for executions in
penny pilot options. See BOX Options fee schedule, available here,
http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule.pdf. In addition, NOM
recently proposed to charge non-NOM Market Markers $0.55 for
executions in the following penny pilot options: EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ,
and SPY; and charge all other account types $0.50 for removing
liquidity in these symbols. See File SR-NASDAQ-2015 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers for Penny Pilot Issues
    The Exchange is proposing to add a new tier to the Customer Monthly
Posting Credit Tiers for Penny Pilot Issues (``Posting Credit Tiers,''
each a ``Tier''), which currently has six Tiers.

The Exchange currently offers incremental Posting Credit Tiers for
Posted Electronic Customer and Professional Customer Executions in
Penny Pilot Issues based on escalating levels of business executed on
the Exchange and also on the NYSE Arca Equity Market. The Exchange
proposes to add a new Tier that will replace Tier 6; current Tier 6
will have the same posting requirements, but will become Tier 7.
    To qualify for proposed Tier 6, Order Flow Providers (``OFPs'')
must achieve at least 0.50% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF
option Average Daily Volume (``ADV'') from Customer and Professional
Customer Posted Orders in all Issues Plus Executed ADV of 0.70% of U.S.
Equity Market Share Posted and Executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market.\5\
OFPs that meet the qualifications for Tier 6 would receive a credit of
$0.48 per contract applied to posted electronic Customer and
Professional Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues. The Exchange
believes this proposed change would provide additional incentive to
direct Customer (and Professional Customer) order flow to the Exchange,
which benefits all market participants through increased liquidity and
enhanced price discovery. The Exchange also notes that cross-asset
incentives are not new or novel, as the Exchange currently offers them
(see, e.g., Tier 4), and proposed Tier 6 offers incentives similar to
those recently introduced on a competing option exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The qualification level of U.S. Equity Market Share Posted
and Executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market corresponds to Tier 1 on the
NYSE Arca Equities Inc., Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange
Services, available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
    \6\ Specifically, NOM recently added a new tier that is eligible
for a $0.51 per contract rebate provided that ``Participant (1) adds
Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-
Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
Options above 0.85% of total industry customer equity and ETF option
ADV contracts per day in a month and (2) the Participant has added
liquidity in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more of Consolidated Volume
during the month.'' See File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer and Professional Customer Incentive Program
    The Exchange is proposing two modifications to the Customer and
Professional Customer Incentive Program, which provides four
alternatives to earn credits. Currently, if an OTP Holder or OTP Firm
(each an ``OTP'') executes at least 0.75% of Total Industry Customer
equity and ETF option ADV from Customer and Professional Customer
Posted Orders in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Issues, of which
at least 0.25% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV is
from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Orders in non-Penny
Pilot Issues, that OFP qualifies for an additional $0.03 Credit on
Customer and Professional Customer Posting Credits. The Exchange
proposes to increase the 0.75% minimum volume requirement to 1.00% and
to increase the applicable additional credit to $0.04.
    The Exchange also proposes a fifth alternative to qualify for
additional credits under the Customer and Professional Customer
Incentive Program. The Exchange proposes that an OTP that has an
executed ADV of 0.70% of U.S. equity market share posted and executed
on NYSE Arca Equity Market \7\ would qualify for an additional $0.03
credit on Customer and Professional Customer posting credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra n. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Liquidity Discount for Certain Market Participants
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes modifications to the Discount in Take
Liquidity Fees for Professional Customer, Market Maker, Firm and Broker
Dealer Liquidity Removing Orders (the ``Take Fee Discount'') for OTPs.
Currently, the Take Fee Discount is applied if the OTP meets both
qualifications of at least 1.00% of Total Industry Customer equity and
ETF option ADV from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Orders in
all Issues AND at least 2.00% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF
option ADV from Professional Customer, Market Maker, Firm, and Broker
Dealer Liquidity Removing Orders in all Issues. The Take Fee Discount
applied to orders meeting both qualifications is $0.02 in Penny Pilot
issues, and $0.06 in non-Penny Pilot issues.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the qualifications such that
meeting either qualification (rather than both) would enable an OTP to
receive the discount, which would make the Discount easier to achieve.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the Take Fee Discount for
applicable orders in Penny Pilot Issues from $0.02 to $0.04, and to
discontinue the Take Fee Discount applied to executions in non-Penny
Pilot issues. Thus, as proposed, a discount of $0.04 in Penny Pilot
issues would be applied if the OTP executes at least 1.00% of Total
Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV from Customer and
Professional Customer Posted Orders in all Issues, OR executes at least
2.00% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV from
Professional Customer, Market Maker, Firm, and Broker Dealer Liquidity
Removing Orders in all Issues.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Take Fees for Non-Customers
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
competitive with fees charged by other exchanges and are designed to
attract (and compete for) order flow to the Exchange, which provides a
greater opportunity for trading by all market participants.\10\ In
addition, the increased Take Fees are reasonable because the fees would
generate revenue that would help to support the credits offered for
posting liquidity, which are available to all market participants.
Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed change does not unfairly
discriminate because it applies equally to all Non-Customers who are
removing liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the introduction of a new Tier in the
Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to
attract additional Customer (and Professional Customer) electronic
equity and ETF option volume to the Exchange, which additional
liquidity would benefit all participants by offering greater price
discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to
trade on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
credits available on this new Tier are reasonable because they would
incent OTPs to submit Customer (and Professional Customer) electronic
equity and ETF option orders to the Exchange and would result in
credits that are reasonably related to the Exchange's market quality
that is associated with higher volumes. The Exchange also notes that
cross-asset

incentives are not new or novel, as the Exchange currently offers them
(see, e.g., Tier 4), and proposed Tier 6 offers incentives similar to
those recently introduced on a competing option exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed modifications to the Customer
and Professional Customer Incentive Program are reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because they are designed to attract
additional Customer (and Professional Customer) electronic equity and
ETF option volume to the Exchange, which additional liquidity would
benefit all participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed credits available in
the new (fifth) alternative would provide additional incentive to OTPs
to submit Customer (and Professional Customer) electronic equity and
ETF option orders to the Exchange and would result in credits that are
reasonably related to the Exchange's market quality that is associated
with higher volumes. In addition, the proposed fifth alternative would
attract additional posted order flow to NYSE Arca Equities, so as to
provide additional opportunities for all ETP Holders to trade on NYSE
Arca Equities.
    The Exchange believes the changes to the take Fee Discount for Non-
Customers are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because it
makes the Discount easier to achieve which would incentivize OTPs to
execute large volumes of orders on the Exchange, which benefits all
market participants through increased liquidity and enhanced price
discovery. The Exchange believes the elimination of the Discount for
Non-Penny Issues encourages OTPs to bring more business to the Exchange
in Penny Pilot issues, which are generally the most active issues, to
the benefit of Customers and Non-Customers alike. The Exchange believes
the Take Fee Discount is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because it continues to apply to all participants other
than Customers, who pay a much lower Take Liquidity Fee, and because it
is available to all firms that provide Customer and Professional
Customer orders. The Exchange also notes that the proposed Take Fee
discount is consistent with those offered on competing options
exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., BATS Options Exchange fee schedule (Non-Customer
Penny Pilot Take Volume Tiers), available here, http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ 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. Instead, the Exchange believes that the
proposed incentive will continued [sic] to encourage competition,
including by attracting additional liquidity and a wider variety of
business to the Exchange, which would continue to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution and
price discovery. The also [sic] Exchange believes the proposed fee
modifications do not impose an undue burden on competition because the
changes offset an increase in fees for some transactions with a variety
of means to achieve credits and discounts. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes would impair the ability of any
market participants or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The increases in Take Liquidity fees will impact all affected order
types (i.e., Professional Customers, Firm, Broker Dealers) in issues at
the same rate. The proposed changes to the Customer Monthly Posting
Credit Tiers, and the proposed modification to the Customer Incentives
are designed to attract additional volume, in particular posted
electronic Customer (and Professional Customer) executions, to the
Exchange, which would promote price discovery and transparency in the
securities markets thereby benefitting competition in the industry. As
stated above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
impact all similarly situated OTPs that post electronic Customer (and
Professional Customer) executions on the Exchange equally, and as such,
the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
either among or between classes of market participants.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-108. This
file number should be included on

the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies
of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-
108 and should be submitted on or before December 10, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29490 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR, PESTICIDES & TOXICS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 61 Forsyth St., S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Fax Number: 404/ 562 9095 Electronic Transmission MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 1999 SUBJ: Initial EPA Comments on SCE& G's Cope Station FROM: Scott Miller, Environmental Engineer Operating Source Section, ARTB TO: Mr. Matt Wike South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control cc: Mr. Robert Brown, Permit Manager South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Below are initial comments from EPA Region 4 on the above referenced source. Our comments are divided into two categories: 1) Significant Comments and 2) General Comments. Significant comments are defined as those comments that would trigger an objection under 40 CFR Part 70. Given that we have several significant comments on this permit, which was originally submitted as a draft/ proposed permit, EPA no longer considers the permit eligible for parallel review. Please contact me at your convenience in order that we may seek to resolve these issues prior to your submittal of a proposed permit for this source. You may reach me at ( 404) 562 9120. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Significant Comments 1. The periodic monitoring for particulate matter from the electric utility boilers in permit condition 6. B. 1 on page 25 is inadequate. The only monitoring is an annual stack test. This monitoring is not frequent enough since the sources can not in good faith certify compliance with the particulate matter standard for all times during the year. EPA understands that the utility companies desire to have the same monitoring requirements in their title V permits in South Carolina as they do in North Carolina. It should be noted that although the North Carolina electric utility permits were initially issued with this annual test requirement, these same North Carolina permits have been rescinded, and EPA has informed North Carolina that the monitoring requirements must be changed. EPA maintains that once a year monitoring is not adequate, and EPA does not plan on approving this level of monitoring in any state in Region 4. One approach that the State may want to consider is the use of continuous opacity monitoring data to show compliance with the particulate emission standard. The condition given below is one acceptable way for the State to implement periodic monitoring at the utilities to show compliance with the relevant particulate emission rate:

" Pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 035, Section 7( 1)( c), to meet the periodic monitoring requirement for particulate, the permittee shall use a continuous opacity monitor ( COM). Excluding the startup, shutdown, and once per hour exemption periods, if any six minute average opacity value exceeds the opacity standard, the permittee shall, as appropriate, initiate an inspection of the control equipment and/ or the COM system and make the necessary repairs. If five ( 5) percent or greater of COM data ( excluding startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods, data averaged over six minute period) recorded in a calendar quarter show excursions above the opacity standard, the permittee shall perform a stack test in the following calendar quarter to demonstrate compliance with the particulate standard while operating at representative conditions. The permittee shall submit a compliance test protocol as required by condition Section G( a)( 20) of this permit before conducting the test. The Division may waive this testing requirement upon a demonstration that the cause( s) of the excursions has been corrected, or may require stack tests at any time pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 045, Performance tests."

The Region's comments on this approach are attached to this letter.

Another similar approach accepted by the Region for facilities that do not generally operate near the allowable particulate emission rate is as follows:

E6. The particulate emissions from this fuel burning installation shall not exceed 0.105 pounds per million Btu of heat input as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 6. 02( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations ( TAPCR).

Compliance Method: Monitoring of this fuelburning source for compliance with the applicable particulate emissions limitations shall be conducted by stack testing in accordance with 40 CFR60, Appendix A, Method 17. This testing shall be performed on a biennial basis and a particulate source test report shall be filed with the Technical Secretary within 60 days after completion of the testing. The source test shall be conducted in accordance with specifications for source sampling given in Chapter 1200 3 12 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. The continuous in stack opacity monitor( s) shall be fully operational prior to and during this compliance testing. The opacity data generated during this compliance testing shall be incorporated into the test report.

Ten ( 10) days prior to conducting the source test, the permittee shall provide notice of such test of the Technical Secretary to afford him the opportunity to have an observer present.

Should atmospheric sulfates ever become an issue, the Division will reassess the applicability of the test procedure as it relates to this issue. This is per the October 25, 1977 letter to Dr. Peter A. Krenkel, P. E.

Compliance with condition E8 of the permit shall be used as an indicator to determine whether compliance with this condition should be confirmed with a Method 17 test. Within sixty ( 60) days of an exceedance of the de minimis criteria specified in condition E8, the facility will conduct a Method 17 test.

TAPCR 1200 3 9. 02( 11)( e) 1.( iii)

E8. The visible emissions from each stack of this fuel burning installation shall not exceed twenty ( 20) percent opacity except for one  six ( 6) minute period per one ( 1) hour of not more than forty ( 40) percent opacity as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 5. 01( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations.

Compliance Method: Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 1200 3 5. 03( 5) of the Regulations, compliance with the applicable visible emissions standards shall be determined from data generated by the opacity monitoring system, provided the quality assurance and operational availability requirements set forth in this permit are met.

Consistent with the provisions of Rule 1200 3 20. 06 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations, no notice of violation shall be automatically issued for periods of visible emissions from this fuel burning installation that are in excess of the applicable visible emission standard so long as the total amount of time that the fuel burning installation is exceeding the applicable visible emission standard ( excluding periods of permitted startup, permitted shutdown, or malfunction and periods when the fuel burning installation is not operating) is not in excess of two ( 2) percent of the total amount of time in a calendar quarter. This exemption is applicable provided that good operational and maintenance practices are utilized for both the fuel burning equipment and the associated air pollution control equipment, the required ninety five ( 95) percent operational availability of the opacity monitoring system is maintained, and that no more than one exceedance of greater than twenty four ( 24) hours duration occurs per calendar year.

Written responses to the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with the applicable visible emission standard. For purposes of annual certification of compliance with the applicable visible emissions condition, the acceptance, by the Division, of the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall be the basis of said certification.

TAPCR 1200 3 20. 06 2. In Table 6.1 Monitoring and Reporting, the facility is required to make one annual visible emissions inspection to demonstrate compliance with 20% and 40% opacity regulations for emission unit 03 ( the coal handling system). The Region believes that more frequent periodic monitoring is necessary to determine the compliance status of the coal handling system with applicable opacity standards. One acceptable approach to periodic monitoring for the facility in determining compliance with the opacity standard:

" The facility shall do a qualitative emissions evaluation on a daily basis for those emission sources controlled by a control device ( i. e. baghouse). Should the observer see visible emissions, the emissions observer must perform an EPA Method 9 reading and log the results of such a reading. For emission units that are uncontrolled, the facility will conduct an annual EPA Method 9 reading to determine compliance with the applicable opacity standard."

3. Section 2 of the proposed Phase II Acid Rain permit prepared for Cope is missing NOx limits. The permit will need to be revised to include the Phase II NOx requirements.

4. The allowances allocated to unit " COP1" should be included for the year 2000 on the Phase II Acid Rain permit. The permit will need to be revised to include allocated allowances for year 2000.

General 1. Permit condition 6. B. 3 on page 25 should be updated to clarify that the continuous opacity monitoring system data is being used to satisfy the opacity periodic monitoring requirement under title V of the Clean Air Act to demonstrate compliance with the applicable opacity limit of 40%. The title V permit should be clear on this point since the language in permit condition 6. B. 3 may give one the mistaken belief that compliance with the 40% opacity standard will be determined based on an annual Method 9 test. One way to effect such a clarification would be to add the following language to permit condition 6. B. 3:

" The data generated by the COMS is the periodic monitoring method chosen to assure compliance with the 40% opacity standard."

2. . The Btu weighted annual emission rate and the Btu weighted annual average emission rate indicated on the Phase II NOx Averaging plan submitted by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company should be rounded to the nearest one hundredth.


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 73934-73936]
[DOCID:fr28de07-192]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57014; File No. SR-ISE-2007-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Options on the iShares MSCI
Mexico Index Fund

December 20, 2007.
    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 November 16, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on the proposal from interested persons and to approve
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to list and trade options on the iShares MSCI
Mexico Index Fund (the ``Fund Options''). ISE is not proposing any
changes to the rules of the Exchange.

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. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to obtain approval to list for
trading on the Exchange options on the iShares MSCI Mexico Index Fund
(``Fund''). The Exchange currently has in place initial listing and
maintenance standards set forth in ISE Rules 502(h) and 503(h),
respectively (the ``Listing Standards''), that are designed to allow
the Exchange to list funds structured as open-end investment companies
such as the Fund without having to file for Commission approval to list
for trading options on the Fund.\3\ The Exchange submits that the Fund
meets substantially all of the Listing Standard requirements. In
particular, all of the requirements set forth in ISE Rule 502(h) are
met except for the requirement concerning the existence of a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (``CSSA''). However, the
Exchange submits that sufficient mechanisms exist that would provide
the Exchange with adequate surveillance and regulatory information with
respect to the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ISE Rules 502(h) and 503(h) set forth the initial listing
and maintenance standards for registered investment companies (or
series thereof) organized as open-end management investment
companies, unit investment trusts or other similar entities that are
traded on a national securities exchange or through the facilities
of a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of
1940 as a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities which track the MSCI Mexico Index (``Index'').\4\ The Index
consists of stocks traded primarily on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores
(the ``Bolsa''). The Fund employs a ``representative sampling''
methodology to track the Index, which means that the Fund invests in a
representative sample of securities in the Index that have a similar
investment profile as the Index.\5\ Barclays Global Fund Advisors
(``BGFA'' or the ``Adviser'') expects the Fund to closely track the
Index so that, over time, a tracking error of 5%, or less, is
exhibited. Securities selected by the Fund have aggregate investment
characteristics (based on market capitalization and industry
weightings), fundamental characteristics (such as return variability,
earnings valuation and yield) and liquidity measures similar to those
of the Index. The Fund will not concentrate its investments (i.e., hold
25% or more of its total assets in the stocks of a particular industry
or group of industries), except, to the extent practicable, to reflect
the concentration in the Index. The Fund will invest at least 80% of
its assets in the securities comprising the Index and/or in American
Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''). In addition, at least 90% of the Fund's
assets will be invested in the securities comprising the Index or in
other related Mexican securities or ADRs. The Fund may also invest its
other assets in futures contracts, options on futures contracts, listed
options, over-the-counter (``OTC'') options and swaps related to the
Index, as well as cash and cash equivalents. The Exchange believes that
these requirements and policies prevent the Fund from being excessively
weighted in any single security or small group of securities and
significantly reduce concerns that trading in the Fund could become a
surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (``MSCI'') created
and maintains the Index.
    \5\ As of July 31, 2007, the Fund was comprised of 27
securities. America Movil SA de CV-Series L had the greatest
individual weight at 25.57%. The aggregate percentage weighting of
the top 5 and 10 securities in the Fund were 58.51% and 78.39%,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shares of the Fund (``Fund Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at net asset value (``NAV'') in aggregation size of
100,000 shares, or multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following
issuance, Fund Shares are traded on an exchange like other equity
securities. The Fund Shares trade in the secondary markets in amounts
less than a Creation Unit and the price per Fund Share may differ from
its NAV which is calculated once daily as of the regularly scheduled
close of business of the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The regularly scheduled close of trading in the NYSE is
normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Street Bank and Trust Company, the administrator, custodian,
and transfer agent for the Fund, calculates the Fund's NAV. Detailed
information on the Fund can be found at http://www.ishares.com.

    The Exchange has reviewed the Fund and determined that the Fund
Shares satisfy the Listing Standards except for the requirement set
forth in ISE Rule 502(h)(1), which requires the Fund to meet the
following condition: ``any non-U.S. component stocks in the index or
portfolio on which the Fund Shares are based that are not subject to
comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the aggregate represent
more than 50% of the weight of the index or portfolio.'' The Exchange
currently does not have in place a surveillance agreement with Bolsa.
    The Exchange understands that the Commission has been willing to
allow a national securities exchange to rely on a memorandum of
understanding entered into between regulators in the event that the
exchanges themselves cannot enter into a CSSA.
    The Exchange further understands that the American Stock Exchange
(``Amex'') has previously attempted to

enter into a surveillance agreement with Bolsa as part of seeking
approval to list and trade options on the Mexico Index.\7\ The Chicago
Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') has also previously attempted to
enter into a surveillance agreement with Bolsa at or about the time
when the CBOE sought approval to list for trading options on the CBOE
Mexico 30 Index in 1995, which was comprised of stocks trading on
Bolsa.\8\ Since Bolsa was unable to provide a surveillance agreement,
the Commission allowed the CBOE to rely on the memorandum of
understanding executed by the Commission and the CNBV,\9\ dated as of
October 18, 1990 (``MOU'').\10\ The Commission noted that in cases
where it would be impossible to secure a CSSA, the Commission relied in
the past on surveillance sharing agreements between the relevant
regulators.\11\ The Commission further noted that, pursuant to the
terms of the MOU, it was the Commission's understanding that both the
Commission and the CNBV could acquire information from, and provide
information to, the other similar to that which would be required in a
CSSA between exchanges and, therefore, should the Exchange or the CBOE
need information on Mexican trading in the component securities of the
Mexico Index or the CBOE Mexico 30 Index, the Commission could request
such information from the CNBV under the MOU.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34500 (August 8,
1994), 59 FR 41534 (August 12, 1994).
    \8\ See infra New Product Release at note 13.
    \9\ The National Commission for Banking and Securities, or
``CNBV,'' is Mexico's regulatory body for financial markets and
banking.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36415 (October 25,
1995), 60 FR 55620 (November 1, 1995) (SR-CBOE-95-45).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements or MOUs between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable, or unwilling, to provide
an information sharing agreement was affirmed by the Commission in the
Commission's New Product Release (``New Product Release'').\13\ The
Commission noted in the New Product Release that if securing a CSSA is
not possible, an exchange should contact the Commission prior to
listing a new derivative securities product. The Commission also noted
that it may determine instead that it is appropriate to rely on a
memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the foreign
regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998), at note 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also recently contacted Bolsa with a request to
enter into a surveillance agreement. Until such time that the Exchange
is able to secure a surveillance agreement with Bolsa, the Exchange
requests that the Commission allow the listing and trading of the Fund
Shares without a CSSA, upon reliance on the MOU entered into between
the Commission and the CNBV. The Exchange believes this request is
reasonable and notes that the Commission has provided similar relief in
the past. For example, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, an
ISE proposal to list and trade options on the iShares MSCI Emerging
Markets Fund.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56324 (August 27,
2007), 72 FR 50426 (August 31, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the Fund would otherwise render the Fund compliant with all of the
Listing Standards.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis for this proposed rule change is found in section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\15\ in that the proposed change will serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Further, this proposed rule change is similar to a
proposal previously submitted by Amex and recently approved by the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56778 (November 9,
2007), 72 FR 65113 (November 19, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2007-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-111. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-111 and should be
submitted on or before January 18, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities

exchange.\17\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which
requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The listing of the Fund Options does not fully satisfy ISE's
applicable Listing Standards, specifically the requirement set forth in
ISE Rule 502(h)(1), which requires the Fund to meet the following
condition: ``Any non-U.S. component stocks in the index or portfolio on
which the Fund Shares are based that are not subject to comprehensive
surveillance agreements do not in the aggregate represent more than 50%
of the weight of the index or portfolio.'' The Exchange currently does
not have in place a surveillance agreement with Bolsa.
    The Commission has been willing to allow an exchange to rely on a
memorandum of understanding entered into between regulators where the
listing SRO finds it impossible to enter into an information sharing
agreement.\19\ In this case, ISE has attempted unsuccessfully to reach
such an agreement with Bolsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 10; See also New Product Release, supra note
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, the Commission has determined to approve CBOE's
listing and trading of the Fund Options and to allow ISE to rely on the
MOU \20\ with respect to the underlying Fund components trading on
Bolsa. The Commission believes that, regardless of the Commission's
willingness to permit reliance on the MOU, ISE should continue to use
its best efforts to obtain a comprehensive surveillance agreement with
Bolsa, which shall reflect the following: (1) Express language
addressing market trading activity, clearing activity, and customer
identity; (2) the Bolsa's reasonable ability to obtain access to and
produce requested information; and (3) based on the CSSA and other
information provided by the Bolsa, the absence of existing rules, law
or practices that would impede the Exchange from obtaining foreign
information relating to market activity, clearing activity, or customer
identity, or in the event such rules, laws, or practices exist, they
would not materially impede the production of customer or other
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed
rule change. The Commission finds good cause, consistent with section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\21\ for approving this proposed rule change before
the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register because it will enable the Exchange to immediately
consider listing and trading the Fund Options, similar to products
already traded on the Exchange,\22\ and because it does not raise any
new regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \22\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-111) be, and it
hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25200 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44898-44899]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5439]

Euton M. Laing: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an
order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
permanently debarring Euton M. Laing from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Laing was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Dr. Laing was given
notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to
request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of March
11, 2020 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Dr. Laing had not
responded. Dr. Laing's failure to respond and request a hearing
constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this action.

DATES: This order is applicable July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for special termination of debarment to
the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville,
MD 20857<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B))
requires debarment of an individual from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any
drug product under the FD&C Act. On August 22, 2019, Dr. Laing was
convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act when judgment
was entered against him in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, after his plea of guilty, to one count of
conspiracy to distribute, with intent to defraud and mislead,
misbranded drugs dispensed by Meds 2 Go, Inc in violation of sections
301(a) and 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 353(b)(1))
and 18 U.S.C. 2 and 371, and a second count of conspiracy to
distribute, with intent to defraud and mislead, misbranded drugs
dispensed by Aracoma Drug Co. in violation of sections 301(a) and
503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act and 18 U.S.C. 2 and 371.
    The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: As contained
in the Plea Agreement filed in his case on July 17, 2018, from 2010
through at least 2011, Dr. Laing conspired with others to provide
prescription drugs to Rx Limited internet customers that were
misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act, because the drugs were
prescribed without a valid prescription in violation of sections 301(a)
and 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act. The prescriptions were not valid because
they were issued outside of the scope of professional practice.
Specifically, the prescriptions were issued based on limited medical
questionnaires and without face-to-face encounters. The misbranded
prescription drugs were then dispensed by Aracoma Drug Co. and Meds 2
Go, Inc. The misbranded prescription drugs were sent to customers in
various locations.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Dr. Laing by certified
mail on February 5, 2020, a notice proposing to permanently debar him
from providing services in any capacity to a person that

has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was
based on a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that
Dr. Laing was convicted of felonies under Federal law for conduct
relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. The
proposal also offered Dr. Laing an opportunity to request a hearing,
providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which
to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing
constituted an election not to use the opportunity for a hearing and a
waiver of any contentions concerning this action. Dr. Laing received
the proposal on February 10, 2020. Dr. Laing did not request a hearing
within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore,
waived his opportunity for a hearing and any contentions concerning his
debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Euton M.
Laing has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C
Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Euton M. Laing, is
permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a
person with an approved or pending drug product application, effective
(see DATES) (see sections 306(a)(2)(B) and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C
Act). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application
who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Euton M. Laing, in any capacity during
his debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Dr. Laing
provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or
pending drug product application during his period of debarment, he
will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C
Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new
drug applications from Dr. Laing during his period of debarment, other
than in connection with an audit under section 306 of the FD&C Act.
Note that, for purposes of section 306 of the FD&C Act, a ``drug
product'' is defined as a drug subject to regulation under section 505,
512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, 382) or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) (section 201(dd)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(dd))).
    Any application by Dr. Laing for special termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with
Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5439 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff
(see ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

    Dated: July 17, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-16046 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


64113 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Notices www. ferc. gov using the `` RIMS'' link, select `` Docket #'' and follow the instructions (call 202– 208– 2222 for assistance). 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 under the `` e Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 26363 Filed 10– 15– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7394– 4]

RIN 2040– AD55 Public Meetings on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Point Source Category AGENCY: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology within EPA's Office of Water is conducting public meetings during the comment period to discuss the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CAAP industry. EPA will sponsor three public meetings throughout the United States to give everyone an opportunity to attend. No registration is required for these meetings. EPA will report on the status of the regulatory development, and the public can ask questions and provide information and ideas to the Agency on key technical, scientific, economic, and other issues.

DATES: The public meeting dates are: 1. October 30, 2002, 9 a. m. to 12 noon, Washington, DC. 2. November 6, 2002, 9 a. m. to 12 noon, Seattle, WA. 3. November 12, 2002, 9 a. m. to 12 noon, Atlanta, GA.

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are: 1. Washington— EPA East (Room 1153), 1201 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20460. The closest Metro stop is Federal Triangle. 2. Seattle— EPA Region 10 Building (Nisqually Pend Orielle— Quinalt— Shoshone Conference Room), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. You can find more information on Seattle transportation, directions, etc. on the following Web site: http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ R10/ EXTAFF. NSF/ webpage/ visiting+ our+ offices? OpenDocument. 3. Atlanta— Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (Atlanta Augusta Room), 61 Forsyth St, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. You can find more information on Atlanta hotels, transportation, etc. at http:// www. epa. gov/ region4/ visitors/ transpor1. htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marta Jordan, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington DC 20460. Telephone (202) 566– 1049, fax (202) 566– 1053 or e mail jordan. marta@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 12, 2002 (67 FR 57871), EPA proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CAAP Category under authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.). The proposed regulations would apply to discharges from certain facilities in the CAAP Category that grow, contain or produce aquatic animals at amounts above 100,000 pounds for three subcategories: flow through, recirculating and net pen systems. EPA did not propose to amend the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting regulations that define the facilities subject to permits. The proposed effluent guidelines and standards would apply to many, but not all CAAP facilities. The public meetings will include a discussion of the scope of the regulation (including subcategorization), a summary of industry information, technology based regulatory options, and general CAAP industry issues. Because EPA did not propose pretreatment standards for CAAP facilities, meeting agendas do not include pretreatment. Although EPA will not record and transcribe these meetings, EPA will prepare meeting summaries and add them to the rulemaking record. If you need special accommodations at these meetings, such as wheelchair access or special audio visual needs, you should contact the following at least five business days before the meeting so that EPA can make appropriate arrangements:   Marta Jordan at (202) 566– 1049 for the meeting in Washington, DC.   Cathe Bell at (206) 553– 0308 and/ or Margaret/ Maria (audio visual needs) at (206) 553– 1050 for the meeting in Seattle. You can also use the following Web site to find information on directions, lodging, and transportation: http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ R10/ EXTAFF. NSF/ webpage/ visiting+ our+ offices? OpenDocument.   Gary Hosmer at (404) 562– 8151 for the meeting in Atlanta. You can also use the following Web site to find information on directions, lodging, and transportation: http:// www. epa. gov/ region4/ visitors/ transpor1. htm. Those who are unable to attend the meeting can get a copy of the presentation and meeting materials after the meeting by making an e mail or telephone request to Mrs. Marta E. Jordan, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Dated: October 10, 2002. Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. 02– 26442 Filed 10– 16– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0260; FRL– 7278– 4]

Caffeine; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: On September 27, 2002, EPA published a notice soliciting public comments regarding the receipt of an application for a quarantine exemption from the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA, APHIS) to use the pesticide caffeine (1H purine2,6 dione, 3,7 dihydro 1,3,7 trimethyl) (CAS No. 58– 08– 2) to treat up to 200 acres of floriculture and nursery crops, parks, hotels and resort areas, and forest habitats to control Coqui and Greenhouse frogs. Comments were being requested because the Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. EPA is extending the comment period for 8 days, from October 15, 2002, to October 23, 2002. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0260 must be received on or before October 23, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the September 27, 2002 Federal Register document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 19: 31 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17OCN1. SGM 17OCN1 64114 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Notices (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 305– 6463; fax number: (703) 308– 5433; e mail address: Sec 18 Mailbox@ epamail. epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal or state government agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Federal or state government entity, (NAICS 9241), e. g., Department of Agriculture, Environment. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP– 2002– 0260. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the September 27, 2002 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA taking?

This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register of September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61099) (FRL– 7275– 2). In that document, EPA sought comment on a quarantine exemption request from USDA, APHIS to use the pesticide caffeine (1H purine 2,6 dione, 3,7 dihydro 1,3,7 trimethyl) (CAS No. 58– 08– 2) to treat up to 200 acres of floriculture and nursery crops, parks, hotels and resort areas, and forest habitats to control Coqui and Greenhouse frogs. The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by EPA. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on October 15, 2002, to October 25, 2002.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

In accordance with 40 CFR 166 the Administrator shall issue a notice of receipt for a quarantine exemption request when the application proposes the use of a new chemical. Further provisions are made to give the public 15 days to comment. However, the Administrator may extend the comment period if additional time for comment is requested.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: October 10, 2002. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 02– 26438 Filed 10– 11– 02; 4: 47 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S THE PRESIDENT'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION BOARD National Strategy To Secure Cyberspace October 11, 2002.

AGENCY: President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, Executive Office Of the President, The White House. ACTION: Notice of pending request for public comment regarding the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace for comment, released on September 18, 2002.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the President's charge in Executive Order 12321, the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (the `` Board'') has been engaged in development of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. On September 18, 2002, the Board released to the public a draft of the Strategy `` For Comment'' (the `` Strategy''). The Strategy was made available online at http:// www. securecyberspace. gov for viewing and downloading. At the time of the release of the Strategy, the Board invited public comments and set a deadline of November 18, 2002 for such comments. The most efficient way to provide public comment is to do so online through the feedback link at http:// www. securecyberspace. gov. By this Notice, the Board continues to solicit further comments and views from the public on the Strategy. DATES: Comments may be submitted through November 18, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically as provided at http:// www. securecyberspace. gov. In addition, written comments may be sent to: PCIPB/ Strategy Public Comment; The White House; Washington, DC 20502. Individual hard copies of the draft Strategy may be obtained by calling 202– 456– 5420. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tommy J. Cabe, (202) 456– 5420. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 16, 2001, the President created the Board by Executive Order 12321. The President noted that ``[ t] he information technology revolution has changed the way business is transacted,

VerDate 0ct< 09> 2002 17: 36 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17OCN1. SGM 17OCN1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15198-15199]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9403-008]

New Hampshire Hydro Associates; Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc.;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 10, 2015, New Hampshire Hydro Associates
informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the HDI
Mascoma Dam Project, FERC No. 9403, originally issued September 21,
1988,\1\ has been transferred to Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc. The
project is located on the Mascoma River in Grafton County, New
Hampshire. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 FERC ] 62,273, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing (5
MW or Less) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc. is now the exemptee of the HDI
Mascoma Dam Project, FERC No. 9403. All correspondence should be
forwarded to: Michael Hansen, Rivermill Hydroelectric, Inc., 44 Deer
Ridge Drive, Barrington, NH 03825.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06531 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23597-23598]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8557]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1148; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-37]

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Southport, NC, and Establishment
of Class E Airspace; Oak Island, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E Airspace at Southport, NC, and
establishes Class E Airspace at Oak Island, NC, as new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Cape Fear
Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field. This action enhances the safety
and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
within the National Airspace System. This action also recognizes the
airport name change to Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field
and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 6, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking, (77 FR 770) Docket No. FAA-2011-1148, to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface designated as South Brunswick County Airport, Southport, NC,
(old name), and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin
Field, Oak Island, NC (new name). Also, as noted, the airport, formerly
called Southport Brunswick County Airport, Southport, NC, is changed to
Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field, Oak Island, NC, and
the geographic coordinates are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs
aeronautical database. Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Southport, NC, and establishes Class E airspace at Oak
Island, NC to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at
Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field, Oak Island, NC.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary to the design of new standard
instrument approach procedures, and for continued safety and management
of IFR operations at the airport. Also, as noted, the airport, formerly
called Southport Brunswick County Airport, Southport, NC, is changed to
Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field, Oak Island, NC, and
the geographic coordinates are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs
aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes controlled airspace at Southport, NC, and establishes
controlled airspace at Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field,
Oak Island, NC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective

September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Southport, NC [Removed]

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Oak Island, NC [New]

    Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie Franklin Field, NC
    (Lat. 33 [deg]55[min]51[sec] N., long. 78 [deg]04[min]24[sec]
W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of the Cape Fear Regional Jetport/Howie
Franklin Field.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 30, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-8557 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P